Skip to main content

Full text of "Official report of debates (Hansard) : Legislative Assembly of Ontario = Journal des débats (Hansard) : Assemblée législative de l'Ontario 1979"

See other formats


Onta/to- 



Legislature of Ontario 
Debates 



Third SessSon of the Thirty- Fsr&t Par 



ERRATA 

The following errata for the Third Session of the 31st Parliament (March 6 - December 
20, 1979) have already appeared in previous daily issues of Hansard. They are reprinted 
here in bulk so that subscribers can ensure that the corrections have been made. 

Should read: 

total exi)enditure ceiling of 
$14,482 billion 

billion for 1978-79 will be 
maintained. 

Mr. Foulds moved first reading of Bill 60. 

Harry Barrett. It takes us back to the early 

guess I can put it very simply. Bishop 
Legurrier 

92, An Act to amend the Railways Act. 
of Bill 93, An Act to provide for the Holding 
of Bill 94, An Act respecting the Anglican 
Bill 95, An Act to amend the Regional Muni- 
Bennett, moved first reading of Bill 96, An 

Mr. Martel moved first reading of Bill 97, 

Bill 33, An Act to amend the Agricultural 

PROVINCIAL COURT 

Provincial Court (Civil Division) 

Project Act, Mr. McMurtry, first reading . . . 

. . . 2307 

over civil claims up to $3,000. The bill 

116, An Act to amend the District Munic- 
ipahty 

Mr. Gregory: There certainly was. 

Bill 140, An Act to amend the Executive 
Council Act. 

Bill 140, An Act to amend the Executive 
Council Act 

An hon. member: It sure won't be the 
member. 

Bill 158, An Act to amend the Regional 
the bids and the contract went to Grumman 
property. There has always been ample 
liability on a child with respect to his liability 
for torts. 

Mr. Breaugh: A slight point of order: 
the province takes $15 miUion out of the 
that up by a couple of miUion dollars. 



No. 


Page 


Column Line 


8 


255 


1 


23 


8 


255 


1 


30 


23 


977 


1 


26 


33 


1399 


2 


32 


46 


1910 


2 


48 


49 


2018 


1 


38 


49 


2018 


2 


4 


49 


2018 


2 


9 


49 


2018 


2 


46 


49 


2019 


1 


5 


49 


2019 


1 


21 


53 


2177 


1 


49 


56 


2307 


2 


18 


56 


2328 


1 


3 


56 


2287 


1 


8 


58 


2388 


2 


50 


76 


3076 


1 


45 


77 


3190 


1 


7 


77 


3190 


1 


Following 6 


88 


3697 


2 


53 


95 


3975 


2 


42 


97 


4069 


1 


18 


103 


4309 


2 


16-17 


105 


4377 


1 


23 


135 


5451 


1 


18 


G-1 


G-9 


2 


22 




Ontario ■^*" **** 



Legislature of Ontario 
Debates 






Official Report (Hansard) 






Third Session, 31st Parliament 

Monday, May 28, 1979 

Speaker: Honourable John E. Stokes 
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, QC 



CONTENTS 

Contents of the proceedings reiwrted in this issue of Hansard appears at the back, 
together with an alphabetical list of the speakers taking part 

Reference to a cumulative index of previous issues can be obtained by calling the 
Hansard Reporting Service indexing staff at (416) 965-2159. 



Hansard subscription price is $15.00 per session, from: Sessional Subscription Service, 
Printing Services Branch, Ministry of Government Services, 9th Floor, Ferguson Block, Parha- 
ment Buildings, Toronto M7A 1N3. Phone 965-2238. 

Published by the Legislature of the Province of Ontario. ^jsnrm., i o 

Edibor of Debates: Peter Brannan. 



2239 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



The House met at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 

NEWSPAPER REPORTS 

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to 
rise on a point of personal privilege relating 
to two Toronto newspaper articles which ap- 
peared last Friday and reported several Metro 
Toronto councillors had alleged I had misled 
the Legislatiu-e. 

Mr. McClellan: They expressed their dis- 
gust. 

Hon. Mr. Norton: I don't mind being 
criticized, but when I am called a liar and 
accused of misleading members of the House, 
that's a matter I simply can't ignore. 

In the Toronto Sun of May 25, members 
of the Metropolitan Toronto social services 
committee are reported as having accused 
me of misleading the Legislature on May 11 
when I told the House that provincial oflBcials 
met with Metro officials "'for half an hour 
and showed them how to save $830,000 with- 
out cutting back services'." 

There was one error of fact in that, and 
that is the meeting lasted' for two or two and 
a half hours, not for one-half hour, as was 
indicated at the time. 

Mr. McClellan: How come you couldn't 
remember that? 

Hon. Mr. Norton: The committee chairman, 
Mr. Bruce Sinclair, is quoted as stating the 
meeting did not take place. 

The Toronto Star, on the same date, re- 
ported Toronto Alderman June Rowlands said 
I had " 'deliberately and intentionally made 
totally false statements' " when I told the 
House that Metro could save $830,000 
through administrative efficiencies. 

I haven't had a chance to speak to the 
committee chairman yet, but the report in the 
Toronto Sun was in error in that regard. First 
of all, that meeting did take place on Wed- 
nesday, April 25, from 10 a.m. until 12 or 
12:30 p.m., as was reported by the social 
services commissioner to the Metropolitan 
social services and housing committee on 
May 2. 

The chairman of Metropolitan Toronto, 
Paul Godfrey, and members of the social serv- 
ices committee met with me on Monday, 



Monday, May 28, 1979 

April 23 to discuss these and other issues. On 
Wednesday, April 25, provincial and Metro 
officials held a subsequent meeting to discuss 
in detail provincial subsidies for administra- 
tion of general welfare assistance. 

It is my information from the minutes of 
the meeting that at that meeting the follow- 
ing potential savings were identified: First, 
$300,000 to Metro by converting to the 
provincial-municipal computer system. This 
saving was not taken into account by Metro 
in presenting its deficit. 

Second, they could save $100,000 in the 
general welfare administration budget through 
the transfer of a surplus from homemakers* 
and nurses' services. Previously, Metro had 
estimated a deficit in that program. 

Third, they could save $90,000 through 
integration of counselling programs to the 
normal general welfare assistance administra- 
tion. Apparently Metro separates its coun- 
selling program to social assistance recipients 
from the normal general welfare assistance 
program. The suggested integration of serv- 
ices would save at least $90,000 in operating 
costs through the elimination of duplication 
in administration. 

During the calendar year 1979 it is ex- 
pected that the new computer system will 
result in $80,000 in staflF savings. It is pro- 
jected that $36,000 will be sav^ because at 
least two StaflF members will no longer be 
required for the cheque issuance control be- 
cause of the change to the computer and 
$150,000 will be saved because Metro origin- 
ally estabhshed administration costs of 
$259,000 for responding to changes in the 
unemployment insurance plan at the federal 
level. Subsequently, at a meeting I had with 
the members of the committee, we explained 
that it was probably too early to estimate the 
impact of those costs and, therefore, we 
would defer consideration of those until later 
in the year. An additional saving of $80,000 
was identified in other areas. 

I am pleased about the consultative process 
we have had at the provincial level and with 
the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, 
from which we both benefit. I want to assure 
the House that these discussions will be con- 
tinuing to determine the' budget base and any 
issues on the provincial ceiling for adminis- 



,2240 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



tration costs. The province is prepared to 
meet Metro officials as these issues arise. 

As I attempted to make clear both on 
May 11 and again on May 24 when the 
matter arose in the House, my comments 
were not intended to be critical of the ad- 
ministrative competence of the Metro ad- 
'ministration. I suggest there is a difference, 
though, between reviewing administration 
and looking for administrative efficiencies 
and suggesting lack of competence. 

There may be a legitimate difference of 
opinion between us as to which measures 
can be described as administrative efficien- 
cies and there may be some differences of 
interpretation still outstanding at the staff 
levels. However, I shall be responding to 
Metro very shortly in an effort to straighten 
out any such misunderstandings and to en- 
sure the resumption and the continuation of 
the co-operative spirit that has marked our 
relationship in the past. 

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, speaking to 
the point of privilege, without wanting to 
get into the charges and counter-charges be- 
tween the newspapers and Metro officials, I 
think the point of confusion is that the min- 
ister said on Friday, May 11 that Metro 
social services by efficient administration 
could make reasonable administrative deci- 
sions which would save $830,000. We are 
still confused as to where this figure of 
$830,000 comes from. 

Hon^ Mr. Norton: I think that the honour- 
able member just heard a rather lengthy list. 
If there are any figures that are omitted from 
that, I'd be glad to provide them to him. 

Mr. MeCIellan: They don't add up to 
$830,000. 

NEWSPAPER REPORT 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On a point of priv- 
ilege, Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct 
an impression that might have been left by 
the Globe and Mail last Saturday, May 26. 

Mr. M. Davidson: Do you feel you are 
imder attack? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It reads: "Mr. Gross- 
man would not name any of the Liberals 
he says supported the program in private 
talks with him. But he said James Breithaupt 
of Kitchener and James Bradley of St. Cath- 
arines should be uncomfortable with their 
leader's position." 

I would point out that I did mention those 
two members, saying they ought to be un- 
comfortable with their position because of 
multinationals existing in their ridings, and 
most successfully. I would not want the im- 
pression to go that I was suggesting that 



either of those members had in fact written 
me privately or quietly or spoken with me 
in private talks supporting a particular pro- 
gram. It would be inaccurate to say that. In 
fact, I indicated at that time that those two 
members specffically had not written me 
privately asking for specffic support. 

Mr. Breithaupt: I appreciate the correc- 
tion which the minister has made to the 
record. 

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY 

TOURISM 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wish today happily 
to offer a good word to the fourth estate at 
a time when the media generally are being 
raked over the coals by some people for their 
coverage of that recent notable national 
event. 

Mr. Ruston: Your candidate in that area. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let's not do it today. 

I wish to acknowledge that my ministry 
has been treated royally by media support, 
province-wide, for our major toiurism promo- 
tion program, "We Treat You Royally." 

Members are, of course, aware that we 
have been moving forward on several fronts 
to stimulate Ontario's tomrism industry, be- 
ginning with our announcement in the budget 
speech that there would be a sales tax break 
on certain equipment purchases by restau- 
rants and tourism operators. At the same 
time, we extended the sales tax exemption 
on tourist accommodation until 1981. In ad- 
dition, we have co-operated with the Min- 
istry of Revenue in publishing a new bro- 
chure which explains how visitors can apply 
for rebates on provincial retail sales tax paid 
for goods purchased here during their visit. 
This brochure has been widely distributed 
and is creating a very favourable impression 
of this province as a good host. 

Recently, of course, we reported to this 
House on our plans for new tourist informa- 
tion centres for both seasonal and year-round 
operations. 

Most important, however, is the way we 
treat our tourists. We laxmched a one-on-one 
welcoming program last year to make all of 
us more aware of how important tourism is 
to the province. The message of that program 
was, and is, simple. We asked everyone, 
especially those who come in contact with 
the touring public, to treat visitors royally. 

The success of the first 12 months of the 
program has been very encouraging. One 
in four residents of Ontario recognized our 
slogan after only six weeks and 75 per cent 
understood why it was important. More than 



MAY 28, 1979 



2241 



5,000 companies, retail and service industries, 
participated in the campaign using oui mer- 
chandising material. In all, we distributed 
2.6 million pieces of merchandising material 
throughout the province. 

To a large extent, the success of "We 
Treat You Royally" was made possible 
through the excellent support of the media — 
newspapers and magazines, radio and tele- 
vision. They helped convey our message with 
conviction and enthusiasm and I thank them 
for it. 

Today we are officially launching year two 
of the "We Treat You Royally" program. We 
have expanded the program this year. There 
are currency exchange facilities at all major 
border crossings and we have included new 
and more relevant types of merchandising 
materials, such as the currency exchange 
wheel, to let all tourists know what ex- 
change rate to expect and, as I mentioned, 
a brochure to let visitors from outside On- 
tario know that they can get a sales tax 
rebate on certain goods. 

One of the most important aspects of "We 
Treat You Royally" is the new training 
program which is designed to encourage 
people in the hospitality industry to treat 
visitors royally. Our target is to graduate at 
least 25,000 trainees over the next 12 months. 
Of this number, 11,500 will be instructed by 
specially trained personnel from my ministry; 
the remainder by the private sector. I am 
meeting with the media at Ontario Place 
later today to provide more program details, 
distribute our new material and ask for their 
renewed support. 

On Wednesday of this week, there will be 
a "We Treat You Royally" festival at noon- 
time in Nathan Philhps Square here in 
Toronto. In other areas of the province, pro- 
motions to introduce year two are already 
taking place with many more events planned 
for the summer and fall. 

There's no question the program has been 
accepted and there's no question it is 
important. Over $5 billion is generated 
annually from tourism in this province. 
Tourism employs 12.5 per cent of the Ontario 
work force. It is Ontario's second largest 
export industry. 

Mr. Speaker, "We Treat You Royally" has 
had a great season in its first 12 months 
and, with everyone helping, we can make 
the next 12 months even better than before 
by letting each visitor know that in Ontario 
we do, in fact, treat you royally. 

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, later this 
afternoon at the appropriate time I will be 



tabling a copy of a letter from the chairman 
of Ontario Hydro to the chairman of the 
select committee on Ontario hydro aflPairs 
concerning reports prepared by Ontario 
Hydro on an incident at the Bruce A nuclear 
generating station on April 28, when two 
hydro employees received radiation exposures 
beyond permitted levels. Attached to the letter 
are copies of the reports. 

I believe that this letter will clarify any 
questions which the honourable members 
may have concerning the article in the 
Toronto Star of last Saturday, May 26, and 
the suggestion that Ontario Hydro did not 
live up to a commitment it had made to 
release the report immediately on its com- 
pletion. 

ELEVATION OF ARCHBISHOP CARTER 

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, on Satur- 
day morning last Pope John Paul II announc- 
ed from the Vatican the elevation of the 
Most Reverend Gerald Emmett Carter, Arch- 
bishop of Toronto, to the sacred College of 
Cardinals. As this is the first time that this 
Legislature has met since then, it becomes 
the first opportunity that we have had to 
extend our warm greetings and sincere con- 
gratulations to the cardinal-elect from 
Toronto. 
[2:15] 

Since coming to Toronto as archbishop 
last June, His Eminence has done much to 
foster the cause of ecumenism and greater 
understanding among people of all faiths and 
religious beliefs. His leadership capabilities, 
his zeal, his sensitivity and his piety com- 
bine to make him one of the most outstand- 
ing church leaders of these times. Cardinal- 
elect Carter has already made numerous sig- 
nificant contributions to his own church and 
to mankind. 

As we all know, he is an eminent Latin 
scholar. Almost from the time of his ordina- 
tion to the priesthood more than 40 years 
ago, he has been known internationally for 
the leading role he played in the translation 
of Latin texts, following the decisions that 
emanated from Vatican II. 

The new prince of the Roman Catholic 
church hails from a very distinguished 
Montreal family which gave four of its 
children to their church. One brother is the 
Most Reverend Alexander Carter, Bishop of 
Sault Ste. Marie, while his two sisters are 
prominent members of religious orders. In 
1977, the new Cardinal-Archbishop of 
Toronto was singularly honoured by his 
peers in the world hierarchy of the Roman 
Catholic Church when he was elected to 
the 12-man council synod of bishops. 



2242 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Mr. Speaker, I know I am speaking for 
you and each and every member of this 
Legislative Assembly when I express our 
profound joy and gladness with this Vatican 
announcement. As His Eminence the cardinal 
prepares to leave for Rome next month to 
receive his cardinal's red hat, he takes with 
him the prayers and the best wishes of all 
the people of Ontario. 

May God in his wisdom guide and direct 
him and may his reign as Toronto's and 
Ontario's cardinal be fruitful and lengthy. 

Mr. S. Smith: I wish briefly to associate 
ourselves with the excellent comments made 
by the minister concerning the elevation of 
His Eminence to the position of cardinal. As 
outlined, the newly-elected cardinal has an 
excellent record of service to the church, to 
the community, to the country and to man- 
kind generally. We hope and pray, and we 
know, that this record of service will be that 
much more enhanced in his new position. 
We certainly wish him only tlie best. 

Mr. Cassidy: On behalf of my party, I 
want to share in the profound joy which I 
know that Catholics across Metropolitan To- 
ronto and across Canada have felt in the 
elevation of Archbishop Carter to be a 
cardinal. Clearly he will speak with distinc- 
tion and courage on behalf of Catholics from 
across this province and this country in the 
synod in Rome. We too would like to 
associate ourselves with the comments of the 
Minister of Intergovernmental AflFairs in wel- 
coming this elevation of an archbishop of the 
church from Toronto. 

ELLIOT LAKE URANIUM MINES 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Later today I will table 
the final report entitled. The Expansion of the 
Uranium Mines in the Elliot Lake Area, 
which I have just recently received from the 
Environmental Assessment Board. 

This comprehensive report, which indeed 
it is, concerning environmental factors related 
to the expansion of the Elliot Lake mines is 
a summary of the public hearings held by the 
Environmental Assessment Board between 
November 1977 and March 1979. The board 
has had a total of 74 sittings and received 
submissions from 95 witnesses whose testi- 
mony, supported by 450 exhibits, is contained 
in more than 11,000 pages of transcripts. 

I received the report on Thursday. 
Obviously, I have not had the time personally 
to read it, but I wished to table it at the 
first possible opportunity. 

The Environmental Assessment Board 
chairman advises me that the main thrust of 
the report is its conclusion that the expansion 



and operation of the mines can be carried 
out in an environmentally acceptable manner 
during the short term, that is, during the next 
30 to 40 years in which the mines are ex- 
pected to operate. The board states that 
technology exists to ensure achievement of 
the environmental objectives. 

The report contains several recommenda- 
tions concerning the long term, the period 
after mining has slowed down or terminated. 
These are aimed at developing a strategy for 
attracting and developing new industry in 
order to avoid a one-industry Elliot Lake be- 
coming a deserted ghost town. The bo^d 
directs its recommendations in these areas to 
the companies and to the private sector, as 
well as to the appropriate Ontario ministries 
and federal agencies. 

I intend to review thoroughly all the find- 
ings and recommendations of the board with 
my colleagues and with qualified staff to 
determine an effective strategy and plan for 
implementation. I will announce our response 
to this report at that time. 

In conclusion, I wish to thank the members 
and the staff of the Environmental Assess- 
ment Board for the effective conduct of the 
public hearing and for the reports. I also wish 
to commend the three mining companies, the 
United Steelworkers of America, the town of 
Elliot Lake and the members of the Serpent 
River Indian band for their responsible and 
professional participation in these hearings. I 
would also like to thank the staffs of the 
Ministries of Housing, Labour, Natural Re- 
sources and Community and Social Services, 
who joined my ministry's representatives at 
these hearings. 

ORAL QUESTIONS 

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY 

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for 
the Minister of Energy, arising from his pre- 
vious answers on the matter of the Babcock 
and Wilcox (Canada) Limited boilers sup- 
plied to Ontario Hydro. 

On Friday last the minister referred to the 
fact that competitive tenders were called for 
the Pickering A boilers in 1965 and for the 
Bruce A boilers in 1970, but that they were 
not called in 1973 and 1974 for the Pickering 
B boilers allegedly . because "Babcock and 
Wilcox was the only company in Canada 
which had the necessary manufacturing facil- 
ities in place to construct and manufacture 
this type of boiler." 

Will the minister explain how it is that 
other companies that were available in 1965 
and 1970 were no longer available, in the 
government's view, in 1973 and 1974— 



MAY 28, 1979 



2243 



which suppliers so disappeared from the 
scene that they were unable to tender com- 
petitively in 1973 and 1974? Is the minister 
not aware that between 1970 and 1974, 
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited was also 
contracting out for boilers and found a num- 
ber of companies willing to tender? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give 
the member a detailed answer on that. I 
assume there were perhaps technical con- 
siderations, if I can put it that way, but I 
will inquire from Hydro and try to have the 
answer for him very shortly. 

Mr. S. Smith: Does the minister not 
realize that he has supposedly answered to 
this House on the subject of the tenders 
and the failure to call for tenders, and pre- 
sented information that he apparently was 
ready to accept, that there were no other 
companies ready to bid, and yet the evi- 
dence would seem otherwise? 

May I ask him, while he thinks that over, 
is he still unaware that Babcock and Wilcox 
did not win AECL's last contract, for the 
Korean reactor, partly because of AECL's 
concern that the Babcock design would pro- 
duce the very tube crimping that did occur 
with the heat treatment? 

Did people within Hydro tell the minister 
that the Darlington station contract had been 
awarded to Babcock and Wilcox despite the 
fact that Hydro was warned that that design 
would lead to these very problems? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am not aware that Hydro 
was informed as the Leader of the Opposi- 
tion says. But I will inquire into that too. 
I would add that I think the Leader of the 
Opposition is aware that work has not yet 
started on the Darlington boilers as a result 
of the checks that were made in December, 
when Hydro asked Babcock and Wilcox to 
cease work on their current production until 
they got to the cause of the problem. 

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. 
Speaker: In the case of the previous con- 
tracts or of the Darlington contract, given 
that there is no performance bond, can the 
m'nister say that there is any guarantee at 
all from Babcock and Wilcox that these very 
complex and sophisticated boilers will work? 
Or are they simply taken on the basis that 
all of the risk rests with Hydro? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: My understanding, Mr. 
Speaker, is that the contracts called for the 
delivery of the boilers to meet specifications, 
which included operating specifications. 

Mr. S. Smith: Can the minister confirm 
or deny that Hydro has decided that one 
reason it might not go after Babcock and 
Wilcox for the entire sum of money that 



would otherwise be due to Hydro because 
of a manufacturing defect is the fear of 
putting Babcock and \j|glcox out of business? 

If that is true, doeaShe stand behind that 
decision or will he see to it that Hydro goes 
after Babcock and Wilcox and, tf need be, 
let the American company bail them out? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: The only information I 
have is that Hydro has indicated it proposes 
to require Babcock and Wilcox to carry out 
the specifications in the contract. I can't con- 
firm or deny whether or not it will turn out 
that way eventually because, as I said before, 
it may wind up— 

Mr. Mancini: Who's in charge over there? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not you. 

Mr. J. Reed: You are certainly not. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: —in the courts, although 
I would hope that would not be the case 
because of the long delays that would prob- 
ably ensue. 

Mr. S. Smith: Then deny what I said. 

Mr. MacDonald: Supplementary, Mr. 
Speaker: Since there was a four-year lapse 
between the granting of the contract to Bab- 
cock and Wilcox in 1973-74 and the actual 
manufacture of the boilers in 1978, all of 
which raises rather curious questions as to 
why there was nobody else in the field when 
they had four years to tool up, can the min- 
ister tell us what is the delivery date for the 
boilers that had been ordered for Darling- 
ton? Is it four years ahead so that there 
might have been an opportunity for tender- 
ing? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I'm afraid I can't give 
that detail either. I do know that Babcock 
and Wilcox had orders at one time from 
both Ontario Hydro and AECL, but I don't 
know in what order deliveries were sched- 
uled. 

Mr. J. Reed: Who is in charge over there? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I do know the work has not 
started on the Darlington boilers as yet. I 
also understand there is a long time— and 
I'm sure the chairman of the select com- 
mittee would be aware of this— between the 
time a design requirement is produced by 
Hydro, the specifications put together by the 
contractor and perhaps Atomic Energy of 
Canada Limited, work started and then com^ 
pleted. 

I don't know whether the normal course of 
events is a four-year time period between 
ordering and delivery. I really don't. 

PCBs IN MILK 

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like 
to direct a question to the Minister of Health 



2244 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



concerning the matter of PCBs in mothers* 
milk. 

The minister started a program about a 
year and a half ago to have mothers' milk 
tested because of the dangers of excessive 
amounts of PCBs in breast milk. I've been 
asked by one of my constituents what the 
present situation is, especially in view of the 
information letter from the health protection 
branch federally, advising women in the 
Great Lakes basin, which is most of the 
people resident in Ontario, to seek their 
doctors' advice before breast feeding because 
of the danger of PCBs. 

I would ask the minister, therefore, could 
he give us the results of the study which he 
has had going for about a year and a half, tell 
us the testing techniques he has had, what 
the results have been particularly, and what 
allowable levels he would consider are to be 
accepted? 

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr, Speaker, obviously 
I don't have that information with me today, 
but ril be glad to take the question as notice 
and answer it as soon as possible. 

Mr. S. Smith: Would the minister be kind 
enough to check with Dr. Harding of the 
Ministry of Labour, where currently these 
results are tested for and confirm what Dr. 
Harding said to one of my assistants, namely, 
''There's really no point to doing any of this 
testing; it's just a program to appease 
people"? 

Is the minister also able to check on the 
information that these PCBs are more 
prevalent toward the end of a feeding than 
toward the beginning, and would he check 
to see whether the samples that have been 
tested are relevant from that point of view? 
Could he present a full report, including what 
the allowable levels are, and explain why Dr. 
Harding seems to believe the whole program 
is just something to appease people and 
something of no value at $100 a test? 

[2:30] 

Hon. Mr. Timbrel!: The member will re- 
call, I'm sure, that when the matter first 
arose, it was one that evoked a great deal 
of concern. In order to try to get a firm fix 
on the nature of the problem and what could 
be done, if anything, about it, we initiated 
the testing. 

As I said, I obviously don't have those 
figures with me but I will take the question 
as notice and report back with all the infor- 
mation currently available. 

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary, the 
member for Huron- Bruce. 

Mr. Gaunt: Am I correct in assuming the 



Ministry of Health pays for these tests; and 
if so, what has the cost been to date? 

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I'll include that in- 
formation, Mr. Speaker. 

FOOD PROCESSING 

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the 
Minister of Industry and Tourism concerning 
the problems of Ontario's food processing 
and canning industry. In view of the fact 
imports account for 89 per cent of Canada's 
sales of canned peaches, 83 per cent of our 
sales of canned mushrooms and 42 per cent 
of the sales in Canada of canned tomatoes, 
could the minister say when the Ontario 
government will announce plans to ensure 
our needs for these products are being met 
from Canadian sources? Why did the govern- 
ment wait until this February to establish 
a task force on the food processing industry? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Obviously, any further 
action we take will await the excellent work 
of that food processing consultative com- 
mittee. 

I might add, all the groups are working 
very hard together, including representatives 
of all sectors of the industry. They recently 
reported excellent progress to me. 

I would hope before this House reconvenes 
in the fall, we would have something sub- 
stantive to report as a result of those reports. 

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. 
Speaker: Given the fact we have been losing 
about a cannery a year for the last 15 years; 
and given the fact the imports of processed 
fruit and vegetables have gone up by 40 
per cent in the last two years; and given the 
fact we are losing an estimated 6,600 jobs 
because of imports of processed fruits and 
vegetables that we can make for ourselves, 
when does the government intend to get 
serious about actually ensuring we process 
and make for ourselves the processed fruits 
and vegetables which we can grow in this 
climate? 

Mr. Ruston: The minister should call his 
kissing cousins in Ottawa. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That's the former 
government's fault. I can only respond by 
indicating once again that we have only 
had two consultative task forces. The first 
one was on electronics, which the member's 
party has also discussed in the House. The 
second is on food processing. They are hard 
at work now. 

I'd like to add one other thing: We are 
not trying to push the decisions or recom- 
mendations of that conunittee in one direc- 
tion or the other. Our ministry and three or 
foiu: others are working very closely in an 



MAY 28, 1979 



2245 



advisory and secretarial fashion with that 
committee so they may make some com- 
ments to us and some suggestions to us from 
various standpoints— labour, the processors, 
and the agricultural componeSnts— and so 
they may develop some of these solutions 
for us. I don't deny the problems and, 
obviously, that's the reason this government 
has reacted by starting a task force. 

Mr. Swart: By way of supplementary to 
the minister: May I ask him if he realizes 
the first essential for fruit farmers to plant 
a variety of fruit, particularly peaches and 
pears appropriate for canning, is a guaran- 
teed future market at a price to make the 
production viable? Can I ask him whether 
he has discussed the farm income stabihza- 
tion program with the Minister of Agricul- 
ture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) and 
recommended to him it be expanded to in- 
clude fruit that can be grown in this province, 
and to give a guaranteed farm income price 
for that? 

Will he give some assurance now that 
steps will be taken to guarantee the con- 
tinuing canning capacity which exists in 
Niagara? 

Mr. Bradley: Get out the bankroll. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer to the 
second question, which is the only true 
supplementary, is, of course, that is exactly 
what we're trying to do— to ensure the future 
of the food processing industry in this prov- 
ince. That's exactly what we're about. 

The answer to the first part of that ques- 
tion is that my colleague and I have dis- 
cussed these and related matters on several 
occasions. 

Mr. Bradley: Get out your bag of money. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If there are any 
government statements to be made in that 
regard, they will emanate from my colleague. 

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: In view 
of the fact that the canned fruit and vegetable 
industry is 65 per cent foreign-controlled, 
did the minister or his ministry instruct the 
task force to look into this problem? And 
will he make a commitment to us here and 
now that any input to the Foreign Invest- 
ment Review Agency that has to do with any 
kind of takeover or increased concentration 
of foreign ownership in the canned fruit 
and vegetable industry will not be recom- 
mended by his ministry? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I indicated earlier, 
I can't give specifics about our recommenda- 
tions to FIRA, but I do want to make 
clear that with this particular industry we 
are most concerned that decision-making with 
regard to food processing and ownership. 



where possible, remain in this country. Ob- 
viously that is essential to protect that 
sector of our economy. 

Mr. Warner: But you won't do anything. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can assure the 
House directly that both the Minister of 
Agriculture and Food and myself— 

Mr. Bradley: He's busy building national 
unity. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: — will have careful 
and complete discussions on any future 
FIRA applications in order to do what we 
can to ensure: (a) a food-processing industry 
in this province — 

Mr. Laughren: Then stop representing 
them here. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: — (b) that decision- 
making remain here; and (c) that, where pos- 
sible, ownership remain here as well. 

SOLAR ENERGY 

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques- 
tion to the Minister of Energy. In view of 
the increasing uncertainties about the supply 
of oil, is the minister aware of a study which 
has just been released by the federal Min- 
istry of Energy, Mines and Resources which 
shows that a serious commitment to solar 
energy here in this province could create 
1,700 jobs in Ontario by the year 1985 and 
more than 14,000 jobs in Ontario by the year 
1990? What plans does the Ministry of 
Energy have to revise its priorities in the 
light of those findings? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I haven't 
seen the report in question but I will be 
delighted to look at it. 

Mr. Cassidy: It's coming to the minister 
now. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I do know from discus- 
sions I have had with people in the solar 
energy field that at the moment there are 
two main approaches which show economic 
promise in terms of payback. 

Mr. Peterson: It shouldn't be necessary to 
look at the report to have a policy. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: One is domestic hot water 
heating and the other is heating swimming 
pools. 

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Given the 
problems that exist with oil and with nuclear 
power, and given that Ontario intends to 
commit at least $20 billion to electrical 
power over the com-se of the next decade, 
can the minister say why the government 
should not now undertake a major program 
of investment both in conservation and in 
renewable forms of energy, such as solar 



2246 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



power, so that this can be a major source 
of jobs and of energy in the province over 
the next 20 years? 

Mr. S. Smith: Remember that? We've been 
saying that for three years. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: We have indicated that 
our plan and our target in renewable energy 
is to achieve a reduction of two per cent 
in our current energy needs, from other 
sources. I am told by experts in the field 
that is not a small target. 

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, 
is the minister not aware that in the United 
States alone, to say nothing of Japan and 
western Europe, and in solar energy alone, 
let alone all the other renewables, $650 
million will be spent this year, and that is 
considered inadequate by most people who 
understand that industry in the United 
States? How does the minister compare that 
with Ontario Hydro's plans to spend about 
$2 million, grand total, on all forms of re- 
newable energy and conservation programs, 
when on a per capita basis we should be 
spending at least 100 times that? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: As I think I indicated not 
too long ago, we have entered into an agree- 
ment with the government of Canada for, 
I think, $58 million over the next five years 
to provide the kind of incentives which — 

Mr. S. Smith: Their money. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, it's not. It's tax- 
payers' money. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think it's a substantial 
amount of money. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Ontario taxpayers. Never 
forget them. 

Mr. Conway: That's not what Allan Law- 
rence said. 

Mr. S. Smith: That's not what Larry Gross- 
man said. 

Mr. Speaker: Order. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: The program we have un- 
dertaken with the government of Canada, I 
think, is a good one. I also want to repeat 
what I said before: We are monitoring what 
research is being done by a great many juris- 
dictions as well as our own and it seems to 
me to be a waste of money to be duplicating 
what somebody else is doing. 

Mr. Cassidy: Is it not the case that the 
government's priorities as far as energy is 
concerned are reflected in the fact that this 
coming year it will spend about $2 billion in 
investment for Hydro, but only about $10 
million out of our current estimates both for 
renewable energy and for conservation? Are 
those not now the government's priorities. 



and why will not the government now under- 
take a comprehensive series of policies to 
make new subdivisions suitable for solar 
energy to encourage the solar industry and 
to provide loans and grants for solar installa- 
tions? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Once again, very briefly, 
it seems to me that Ontario Hydro's primary 
task is to ensure an adequate supply of 
electricity which is a form of energy which 
everybody accepts. We know how it works 
and we can supply it and, in fact, we can 
supply it in a nuclear fashion with our own 
resources and not be in the hands of ofiFshore 
suppliers and having a drain on Canadian 
dollars. 

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, on May 1 
and May 25 I was asked by the member for 
Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) about the 
status of a review by the Atomic Energy 
Control Board of Babcock and Wilcox in 
connection with damaged boilers for Picker- 
ing B. 

On April 25, 1979, the president of the 
Atomic Energy Control Board, Mr. John 
Jennekens, advised the select committee on 
Ontario Hydro affairs that as a result of 
checks that had been made by Ontario Hydro 
quality assurance personnel, a review involving 
Ontario Hydro, its supplier, Babcock and 
Wilcox, and also its nuclear consultant. 
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, was 
under way. Mr. Jennekens went on to advise 
the select committee that the study had been 
initiated several weeks previously. Members 
of my staff have been in touch with Mr. 
Jennekens and he provided us with the follow- 
ing information: 

1. Ontario Hydro has kept the control 
board advised of the problems with the 
Pickering B boilers and there have been 
frequent staff level discussions of the prob- 
lems and the possible courses of action. 

2. Ontario Hydro informed the control 
board of its decision to have the boilers re- 
paired and the control board agrees with this 
decision. 

(8. No decision has yet been madb by On- 
tario Hydro on the precise repair procedure 
they would propose. When decisions are 
reached on the proposed repair procedures, 
the control board will consider them along 
with the staff of the Ontario Ministry of 
Consumer and Commercial Relations who, of 
course, are involved in inspection of boilers 
and pressiu'e vessels. The control board is 
not preparing its own report into the situation. 
Mr. Jennekens was referring at the select 
committee to the review being conducted by 



MAY 28, 1979 



2247 



Ontario Hydro along with Babcock and' 
Wilcox and AECL. 

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, 
Mr. Speaker, is the minister satisfied that 
no such study has been undertaken by AECB, 
despite the testimony in front of the select 
committee which clearly indicated that a 
study was being undertaken? Why does he 
continue to try to give Hydro credit for 
somehow or other discovering the problem? 
Is he not aware that it was a complete fluke 
that the problem was discovered, that, in 
fact. Hydro was checking on some allegedly 
defective tubing which turned out not to be 
defective and, in that way, accidentally dis- 
covered that the Babcock and Wilcox heat 
treatment had produced the bends in the 
pipes? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: To answer the last part of 
that question first, I understand that there was 
a new procedure which had been adopted 
which led Hydro to take the cover oflE unit 
number 33 and found what was going on 
inside. 

(However, in connection with the first part 
of the Leader of the Opposition's supple- 
mentary, in quoting from the Hansard of 
April 25 of the select committee, that's page 
HA-1200-2: 

**Mr. Nixon: There's just one matter of 
clarification that I'd like to put in my capacity 
as a member rather than as chairman. I 
asked >-ou if there was a special review of 
the Babcock and Wilcox capability and you 
said not on account of the Three Mile Island. 
Is there a review on another account? 

"Mr. Jennekens: Yes, ^|^. Chairman, and 
Mr. Nixon, there is as a result of the checks 
that have been made by Ontario Hydro 
quality assiu'ance personnel. There is a re- 
view that is currently under way involving 
Ontario Hydro and its supplier and also its 
nuclear consultant. The results of that re- 
view we consider to be an essential piece 
of information to our further consideration 
of the licensing of the stations involved." That 
clearly seems to me to indicate that it was 
not a review by the control board but the 
control board would see the results of that 
review when it was completed. 
[2:45] 

APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAMS: 
EMPLOYER-SPONSORED TRAINING 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on 
May 11, the honourable Leader of the 
Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) and the member 
for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) posed 
questions regarding the province's apprentice- 
ship and employer-sponsored training pro- 



grams. At that time, I indicated that I 
would provide the requested data and I am 
able to do so at this time. 

Regarding formal apprenticeship training 
in Ontario, I am tabling a chart in which 
appendix A indicates the number of in- 
dentured apprentices in Ontario, under the 
Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification 
Act, by groups of trades during the past nine 
years. It should be noted that there has 
been a steady growth in the number of 
apprentices during this nine-year period 
from 18,146 from 1970-71 to 30,148 during 
1978-79. 

In answer to the question about the 
allocation of funds for employer-sponsored 
training during 1978-79, it must be em- 
phasized that when the Ontario government 
developed the concept of employer-sponsored 
training, the federal government was sup- 
portive and offered to make available as 
much as $8 million of unallocated training 
funds under their Adult Occupational Train- 
ing Act. This $8 million figure was not a 
provincial estimate of specific training needs 
but rather a federal earmarking of the 
maximum amount that could be made avail- 
able during fiscal year 1978-79. It was 
understood that these earmarked funds would 
be assigned to only those pilot projects 
agreed upon by both federal and provincial 
officials. 

To receive federal support, it was also 
understood that the projects would have to 
meet federal funding criteria under the 
terms of the federal Adult Occupational 
Training Act. 

The emphasis during this developmental 
stage has been to explore various innovative 
and flexible ways of introducing additional 
industrial training in Ontario, primarily in 
the metal-cutting trades. During the last half 
of fiscal year 1978-79, approximately $1.5 
million was spent by both governments on 
employer-sponsored training projects. The 
details of the provincial portion of $585,000 
are tabled in appendix B of this document. 
The federal expenditure is estimated to be 
under $1 milhon. When it became apparent 
to the federal authorities that not all of the 
$8 million would be required, they released 
the unused portion for its original purpose 
of institutional skilled training under the 
Canada Manpower Training Program and of 
on-the-job industrial training under the 
Canada Manpower Industrial Training Pro- 
gram. 

The pilot stage of EST continues to 
generate considerable interest from the 
private sector. In a previous reply on March 
29, 1979, I indicated that 24 community in- 



2248 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



dustrial training committees had been formed 
and that 750 persons were in training. Since 
that time, the number of CITCs has grown 
to 30 and the number of trainees to 936 and 
we now have proposals in process which 
will result in 1,500 people being in train- 
ing in the metal-cutting trades by the end 
of June of this year. Other proposals are 
anticipated which will allow the employer- 
sponsored training program to branch out 
into other areas of need which will further 
add to the total in training. 

A complete list of the community indus- 
trial training committees now in operation 
and the number of trainees associated with 
each is tabled in appendix C of this docu- 
ment. 

I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the honourable 
members will find this information useful. 

Mr. Martel: On a point of order: In view 
of the length of that answer, would it not 
have been better as a statement? 

Mr. Speaker: Had it been any longer, I 
was going to draw to the attention of the 
honourable minister that standing order 27(a) 
provides that wherever notice is taken of an 
oral question that requires a detailed answer 
it will be done by way of ministerial state- 
ment rather than taking up the time of 
question period. I timed it. It was just a 
little over two minutes and so under the 
circumstances we will allow it. I think in 
future, however, if a detailed answer is 
required, it should be done by way of 
ministerial statement. 

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, the original 
question was why, after a promise by the 
minister's predecessor in her portfolio that 
thousands of people would be involved and 
about $7 million or $8 million spent on this 
program, and with $8 million of federal 
money available, her ministry was able to 
gear itself up to take advantage of only $1 
million of federal money and to make a 
$1.5 million total expenditure? 

Surely her ministry knew of the shortage 
of apprentices and the problems. Surely her 
predecessor knew what he was talking about 
when he said that thousands of people would 
come in during that fiscal year. Why could 
the ministry not gear itself up to take advan- 
tage of the millions of dollars of federal funds 
that were there waiting for it? 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: As I mentioned 
earher, Mr. Speaker, there are two require- 
ments that are necessary for any program; 
that is, they must meet two specific federal 
criteria. There were a number of programs 
proposed during the fall, but we did spend 
the period of time from midsummer to 



December exploring die possibilities in many 
areas, in many sectors and in many communi- 
ties. It requires the involvement of com- 
munity-oriented and community-based people 
to make this kind of program work efiFec- 
tively, and that was the initiative that was 
carried out during 1978. 

As a result of that activity, there are now 
larger numbers of young people— those who 
are coming directly out of school and those 
who wish to be retrained or upgraded— 
who are moving into the employer-sponsored 
training program. 

With the numbers of proposals available 
in the appendix list which I have tabled 
with you, Mr. Speaker, the honourable 
member will see just how many communi- 
ties have put forward excellent proposals 
and the fact that we shall be able to move 
forward rapidly from now on. 

Mr. S. Smith: But you have wasted a year. 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You have wasted 
a lifetime. 

Mr. Bounsall: Mr. Speaker, a supplemen- 
tary question: If one looks at the tables in 
the appendices, one discovers that there has 
been not quite a two per cent increase in 
active total apprentices in this year as op- 
posed to last year. Does the ministry call 
it progress in advancing a workable appren- 
ticeship program and an opportunity for 
young people in this province when the 
increase has been less than two per cent? 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the 
apprenticeship program is one of the areas 
in which a great deal of basic activity must 
be begun. The Industrial Training Council, 
under the recommendations of the Hushion 
report, has made certain recommendations, 
which came to me last week, in terms of 
modifying certain areas of the apprentice- 
ship training program to make them more 
attractive to young people. That is one of 
our major activities for the very near future. 
Young people wishing to move into the 
apprenticeship program would like to have 
the opportunity to see that their apprentice- 
ship program does not require a five- or 
six-year total commitment of their lives in 
order to reach journeyman status, because 
they beheve it should not require that length 
of time. That is precisely the activity which 
I reported to this House we were exploring 
and have been exploring over the past 
several months. 

CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS 

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques- 
tion for the Minister of Community and 



MAY 28, 1979 



2249 



Social Services. Further to my question last 
week about the $33 million worth of child 
support payments in arrears in Ontario, I 
would like to ask the minister why he has 
only 20 parental support workers attached 
to the 53 provincial family courts in the 
province? Why would the minister main- 
tain the PSW unit, a unit set up to identify 
and expedite support orders, when he does 
not staflF that oflBce properly? 

Does the minister see any correlation be- 
tween the fact that the nine courts with 
the highest defaulting rates are those that do 
not have parental support workers placed 
with them by his ministry? The nine are 
Waterloo, Rainy River, Bruce, York, Peel, 
Lambton, Huron, Hastings and Frontenac. 

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. 
I could not hear the latter part of the 
honourable member's question. 

Mr. Blundy: I will be glad to repeat it, 
Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. Speaker: Without the details. 

Mr. Blundy: All right. Does the minister 
not see some correlation between the fact 
that the nine courts with the highest default 
in payments do not have any parental 
support workers attached to them and that 
out of 53 courts only 20 have such workers? 

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is my understanding 
that a more relevant factor in the rate of 
enforcement is to be seen in those areas 
where the family court has implemented a 
system of automatic enforcement, where on 
a regular basis the files are brought forward 
and if payments are missed the defaulting 
person is brought before the court to account. 

I am not sure oflF hand whether the corre- 
lation the member has cited is as significant 
as the one that I have referred to. I will 
check with my staflF to see if I can get more 
data on that. 

Mr. Blundy: Would the minister describe 
what level of liaison his ministry has had 
with the Attorney General on this problem? 
It is my information that there has been 
virtually no eflFort by the Ministry of Com- 
munity and Social Services to co-ordinate a 
more eflFective method of enforcing and col- 
lecting support payments. 

Hon. Mr. Norton: I don't know where the 
member gets his information. I can assure 
him there has been liaison both at the staflF 
level and in conversations on the subject 
between myself and the Attorney General. 

Mr. McClellan: Can I ask the minister 
whether it wouldn't make more sense for the 
ministry simply to assume the responsibility 
for collecting support payments and ensuring 



whatever legal action is necessary if the 
payments aren't made, rather than requiring 
family benefits mothers to do that and to 
penalize them financially if the spouse doesn't 
make the support payments? Why doesn't 
the ministry assume the responsibility for 
collecting and enforcing? 

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is my opinion at this 
point that probably an even more eflFective 
way of doing that, if staflF is available, is to 
have it done through the provincial court 
so there is, in fact, a record of whether the 
money has been paid on a monthly basis. 
If a payment is missed, then the court can 
automatically institute the procedure to re- 
quire compliance with the order. I think that 
would be more eflBcient than requiring my 
ministry to become involved as a foiurth 
party. It seems to me that administratively 
the automatic enforcement through the courts 
is the most eflBcient available. 

TTC NEGOTIATIONS 

Hon. Mr. Davis: On a point of personal 
privilege: I don't often wish to correct what 
is reported in the press, but in that this 
matter is of some sensitivity, I thought I 
should. I really thought I would have had 
a question, but I know there are other ur- 
gent matters. 

There is a story in the Sunday Sim, which 
paper isn't often in error, which was re- 
peated by the Toronto Star. It relates to the 
discussions going on between the TTC and 
the transit union. There was a letter from 
myself to Mr. Moynehan. I think the member 
for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) asked me about 
it some time ago. 

The Sun story indicates that it is a secret 
letter. It's so secret it has been posted in the 
press gallery. There is a quotation in the 
story: "I don t like to intervene in the free 
collective bargaining process, but if the 
public of Toronto is inconvenienced I have 
no choice but to act." That same quote is 
used in the Star story with some amplifica- 
tion, et cetera. 

I word my letters as carefully as I do my 
answers in the Legislature. 

Mr. McClellan: You mean the letter says 
nothing? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Actually, it is a fairly brief 
letter. I just want to make it abundantly 
clear that there was no such statement con- 
tained in the letter. I did not suggest that 
if there was inconvenience I would have no 
choice but to act. I do refer to the fact that 
the government does believe in the collective 
bargaining process as it is at present in legis- 
lation. I am not sure where the quotation 



2250 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



emanated from or the genesis for it, or the 
indication that the letter was theoretically 
secret. I don't think it was marked "Personal 
and Confidential," and this is no disrespect 
to Mr. Moynehan but I don't think he ex- 
pected that it was a secret or confidential 
letter either. 
[3:001 

HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES 

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques- 
tion of the Minister of Health. What is the 
position of his ministry on an opted-out 
physician, without notification, charging above 
the Ontario Health Insurance Plan scale in 
a publicly funded hospital and subsequently 
taking the patient to small claims court to 
collect? 

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, that type 
of situation is clearly covered in the state- 
ment I made in March. I would expect that 
any such case the honourable member might 
have knowledge of he would relate to us or 
directly to the Ontario Medical Association, 
which has been successful in mediating similar 
misunderstandings, 

Mr. Breaugh: I did that same routine on 
April 12 and have not heard any results from 
it. In this instance it has already been to the 
OMA, and they say there is nothing they can 
do. Does this then qualify his ministry's 
agreement with the OMA, in the words used 
by today's Star editorial, as a program that 
is more public relations than public service? 

Hon. Mr. Timbrel!: I may say that we have 
had very few indications of problems in 
recent weeks. I am not sure to whom the 
honourable member spoke on April 12, but I 
will be glad to check into that. 

Mr. Breaugh: To the minister— in here. 

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I referred that to sta£F 
at the time, probably. 

Mr. Breaugh: I made the fundamental 
mistake of asking the minister. 

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The fact of the matter 
is that the program seems to be working well. 

Mr. Wildman: Except when you get in- 
volved. 

Mr. Conway: A supplementary question, 
Mr. Speaker: Can the minister indicate today, 
or take advantage of statements at an early 
opportunity to explain to members of this 
House, exactly how the mechanism referred 
to in his March statement has been proceeded 
w^ith? Can he perhaps give us all a better 
understanding of the specifics of this mechan- 
ism, which is to alleviate the problems spoken 
of by the member for Oshawa? 



Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the OMA 
and the Ontario Hospital Association have 
met several times since then to discuss the 
matter. To date, to my knowledge, they have 
not finalized those discussions. There is no 
formal mechanism as such developed as yet. 

Mr. Breaugh: There isn't an informal one 
either. 

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: We have been in 
regular contact with both. Any particular 
problems that have been drawn to our atten- 
tion, to the best of my knowledge, have been 
resolved. 

The member for Oshawa claims— and I 
underline "claims"— that there is a particular 
problem that has not been resolved. I will 
check into that and see whether that is the 
case and, if so, why. 

CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS 

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question 
is to the Attorney General and in essence is a 
companion piece to the questions addressed 
to the Minister of Commimity and Social 
Services. 

In view of these child support orders in the 
family court, and the numbers wdth which 
his ministry deals, would the minister see fit 
to computerize these orders in the courts so 
that the social workers, the recipients and the 
courts themselves may be served by a support 
payment procedure that could be regularly 
updated and enforced? 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I do not 
think there is any question but that there is 
a great deal of wisdom in the question put 
forward by the member for St. George, 
inasmuch as the automatic enforcement pro- 
cedures we have applied have been quite 
successful. Whether a further or greater or 
more widespread application should be done 
by computer or otherwise, I am really not in 
a position to make that judgement. 

There is no question but that we need to 
extend our automatic enforcement procedures, 
and I am hoping we will be obtaining addi- 
tional funds for this purpose. 

Mrs. Campbell: When the minister is look- 
ing at this matter, would he also set forth 
guidelines for the consistent recording of 
these orders so that there can be some 
control over the labelling of accounts as 
dormant? As the minister undoubtedly knows, 
at the present time this seems to be arrived 
at individually in each court by a bookkeeper 
in the court. Some judges, as the minister 
knows, have erased arrears when they became 
substantial. 



MAY 28, 1979 



2251 



Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will certainly look 
into the matter of guidelines. I've asked for 
an updating of the existing situation. 

|One of the problems is that a number of 
these orders are made ex parte in absentia so 
far as the spouse who is required to make 
such payments is concerned. Unfortunately, 
a large percentage of the total is represented 
by orders that are really in eflFect default 
orders right from the commencement, where 
the individual, often the husband, has not 
bothered to appear, the whereabouts is not 
known and the figure at the beginning is a 
rather arbitrary figure. 

Mrs. Campbell: Is it a new procedure? 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, this is particularly 
so in divorce matters. This is very common 
because a large percentage of the divorces 
that are granted in this province are un- 
defended, as the member for St. George 
knows. This often appHes to the orders that 
are made in these very large numbers of un- 
defended divorces which are then filed in the 
family courts. I mention this only to indicate 
that in many of these cases there is a certain 
unreality right from the beginning. In any 
event, we are looking into the matter very 
carefully, and it may be that some better 
form of guidelines would be appropriate. 

FRUIT LAND PRESERVATION 

Mr. Swart: My question is of the Minister 
of Housing. Does he recall that his pre- 
decessor announced with great fanfare in 
February 1977 that his goverrmient was 
cutting back the urban development boun- 
daries in Niagara to save, as he said, some 
3,000 acres of fniitland? 

Given that the developers in certain munic- 
ipalities have appealed almost all of that re- 
duction to the Ontario Municipal Board and 
asked to have it expanded to the original 
boimdaries and that the hearings start one 
week from today, is he going to have legal 
counsel present at the OMB hearings to de- 
fend his position? 

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, we shall have legal 
counsel present at the OMB hearing a week 
from today. We shall make very clear in the 
opening statement exactly what we believe 
the OMB's responsibility is under this par- 
ticular hearing. 

MILTON SCHOOL DELAY 

Mr. J. Reed: My question is of the 
Minister of Education. Would the minister 
undertake to review a decision by her ministry 
to delay from 1980 to 1982 completion of a 
new school in the Timberlea subdivision area 
in the town of Milton? Upon completion of 



that review, would she give an indication 
to this House as to the time line when she 
could bring back a decision based on changes 
that have taken place over the last six 
months in terms of population expansion? 
Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes. 

CHEMICALS IN SCHOOL YARD 

Mr. M. Davidson: I have a question of 
the Minister of the Environment. Given 
that soil testing in the playground area of 
Manchester School in Cambridge shows ex- 
cessive levels of zinc, cadmium, copper, 
nickel and lead, can the minister explain 
why it is that the school board was not 
notified of the problem until some time last 
week, when the ministry was aware of the 
situation as far back as last October, and 
apparently sat on it? 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That is not so. We took 
a few tests last October. We wanted to 
take a good deal more tests and we've done 
that. That information is only recently avail- 
able. I cannot accept what the member 
opposite has said. 

As I understand the situation there, it was 
routine testing that found this, and we 
wanted to confirm all of that information. 
There is no doubt there are high tests there. 
But I would like to remind the member too 
that in 1977 or 1978 a control order was 
placed on that industry. We sure haven't sat 
on it and done nothing. 

Mr. M. Davidson: A supplementary: Given 
that the final report was brought down in 
March and that the official of the ministry 
in Cambridge is only aware of the lead 
level, which is 2,000 parts per million, and 
that one of the toxic metals is cadmium, 
which is far more dangerous, why is it that 
the ministry's official in Cambridge does not 
know the levels of the other metals in- 
volved? When, in fact, is the minister going 
to table a report of these findings so that 
we may be aware of the exact levels found 
in the soil? 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don't think the mem- 
ber is asking that every routine test made 
by the Ministry of the Environment be 
tabled. 

Mr. Martel: It was hardly routine. 

Mr. M. Davidson: You're right; I'm not. 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We're quite prepared 
to table any information the member wants 
at any time we have it; no problem there 
whatsoever. 

Mr. McClellan: What is routine about 
this? 



2252 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Hon. Mr. Parrott: The hundreds of thous- 
ands of tests aren t always going to be put 
on this table. 

Mr. Makarchuk: Surely when you're deal- 
ing with a schoolyard you might show a 
httle more interest. 

NORTHLANDER SERVICE 

Mr. G. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, a question of 
the Minister of Northern Affairs: Over the 
past two years the Ontario Northland Rail- 
way has made some six changes in its 
schedule on the stops between Barrie and 
Orillia, on both its north and south routes. 
I am given to understand that again the 
Northlander train will not be stopping at 
Barrie or Orillia on its north or south routes. 
Is there anything that can be done to con- 
vince these people that both those com- 
munities are necessary stops for the Ontario 
Northland Railway? 

Mr. Bradley: The minister can't blame the 
feds. 

Mr. S. Smith: It's the wrong government. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Speaker, as you 
know, there was considerable pressure to 
move that stop up to Orillia some time ago. 
I believe I indicated to the honourable mem- 
ber that we would review the possibility of 
having that train stop at Barrie, and I am 
prepared to look at that matter again. 

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary: Are these 
cutbacks part of an attempt to get in line 
with federal policy so that VIA Rail can take 
over the passenger service of Ontario North- 
land? 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No. We have not had 
any serious discussions with VIA Rail. 

Mr. Wildman: What do you mean by 
serious r 

PUBLIC HOUSING 

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
question of the Minister of Housing, if I can 
get his attention. Is the minister aware that 
the influx of people from all parts of Canada 
as a result of the industrial expansion in the 
Windsor area has placed an unusual stress 
on existing housing, making it more and 
more difficult for those on low and fixed 
incomes to find affordable housing? What 
plans does the minister have to alleviate the 
needs of the 696 senior citizens and families 
who now have applications in to Ontario 
Housing Corporation? 

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, first of 
all, not too many weeks ago, as the member 
will know, I met with the mayor of Windsor 



and also the general manager of the housing 
authority for that particular community. We 
reviewed some of the needs for public hous- 
ing, both for families and for seniors. I am 
not prepared to accept that number as being 
the most accurate possible, because there 
are a number of applications which, when 
they are eventually processed to the final 
degree, will be found not to qualify under 
the criteria that at present exist in the Min- 
istry of Housing and with the housing au- 
thority. 

We have discussed with the mayor and his 
people other ways of putting housing units 
on the market. The Bridge Street program, 
with which we have concurred and which is 
under way — and some of the units of which 
will go into the rent supplement program — 
has been approved by the Ministry of Hous- 
ing to try to take up some of the slack that 
exists in that particular community. 

I am also waiting to hear back from the 
mayor as to other projects he would like to 
review with the Ministry of Housing as pos- 
sibilities to come under rent review or under 
the sponsorship of a non-profit housing cor- 
poration. 

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: As some 
of the individuals now live in housing which 
is satisfactory to them but which is owned 
by private individuals, and cannot afford that 
housing, and, as a result, have applied for 
housing with the Windsor Housing Author- 
ity, why w'ouldn't the minister consider a 
rent supplement to such individuals? Does 
the minister not consider it unfair to sub- 
sidize one and not another when their in- 
comes are exactly the same? 

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If, by chance, the city 
of Windsor and its housing authority wish 
to recommend to the ministry that certain 
privately owned housing be looked at for 
rent supplement programs, we are prepared 
to do so; whether we use the in situ situation 
or not is something else. 

The fact is that there are some projects in 
this province which the ministry has been 
asked to declare as rent supplement units 
and to allow the tenants at present there to 
go on to a rent supplement program. In the 
assessment of those tenants, their position 
and their rating have been found to be not 
as high as that of some waiting to get into 
those units. I think what we are really look- 
ing at, in fair and frank terms, is trying to 
do end runs on the system, and I don't think 
it's fair. 

[3:15] 

There are others who are not at present 
in adequate housing and who are looking 



MAY 28, 1979 



2253 



for accommodation or their point system 
is substantially higher. As a result, if you 
allow this end run situation to take place, 
the first thing we will have is a great num- 
ber of people, who I think and the system 
also says, are not as eligible for the rent 
supplement program but because of their 
presence in a certain unit they would qualify. 
I don't think that's the way the system 
should work. 

Mr. Cassidy: You are strangling in red 
tape. 

Mr. Cooke: Is the minister aware that in 
Windsor, there are 172 single people be- 
tween the ages of 25 and 59 who have 
applied to get into Windsor housing but 
because of the Ontario Housing Corporation 
policy stating they will not house these types 
of people even though they are disabled, 
they cannot get housing in Windsor and 
other cities across this province? When is 
the minister going to change his policy so 
these types of people can live in decent 
housing instead of slums? 

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That situation doesn't 
exist only in Windsor, obviously. 

Mr. Cooke: That's what I said. 

Mr. Warner: It's a provincial failure. 

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member for Scar- 
borough-Ellesmere should know about 
failures because he really typifies them m 
this particular House. There are people in 
the age group between 25 and 59, as the 
member said. We have tried, through the 
public purse with Central Mortgage and 
Housing Corporation, the municipahties and 
the provincial government, to provide hous- 
ing for the age groups we think are most 
in need. Number one is family accommoda- 
tion and number two is senior citizens, who 
are 60 years of age and older. It has not 
been the pohcy, either federally, provincially 
or municipally to try to fill that void or the 
vacuum that exists for the ages between 25 
and 59. Mr. Speaker, to be very honest with 
you, the system hasn't got the capacity and 
it is not our intention at this time to change 
the policy. 

RAPE CASE 

Mr. Madcenzie: A question of the At- 
torney General: In view of the attempt to 
subvert justice in a particularly vicious rape 
trial scheduled for next month as evidenced 
by the explosives which killed two people 
in a van near the home of the victim and 
this morning's dismantling of a powerful 
bomb which was near the home of another 
one of the victims in this particular rape 



case, would the Attorney General report to 
the House the steps he has taken to protect 
the witnesses, and will he move the date 
of the trial up, at the request of local 
authorities? 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I certainly will at- 
tempt to assure the House proper steps are 
being taken to protect these witnesses. To 
publicly reveal the precise steps, of course, 
might defeat the eflFectiveness of the pro- 
tection. Moving up the date of the trial is 
really a matter for judicial determination. I 
will discuss with the crown prosecutor the 
possibility of doing that, but the ultimate 
decision will lie with the court and the 
judge who is seized of the case. 

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary, Mr. 
Speaker: Would the Attorney General re- 
port to the House on his ministry's actions 
and instructions to police forces across 
Ontario to eliminate such sick actions and 
deal with those motorcycle gangs reputed to 
have connections with organized crime and 
the ilhcit drug traffic? Will he specffically 
report to the House as to whether or not the 
use of dynamite bombs as a means of inti- 
midation, which has grown to almost epi- 
demic proportions in the United States, has 
now moved over into Ontario as well? 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I will report back 
to the Legislature to the extent I can, Mr. 
Speaker. Generally in relation to this prob- 
lem I just want to make it clear to the mem- 
ber, I share his concern. 

QUALIFICATIONS OF DIRECTOR 
OF EDUCATION 

Mr. Euston: I have a question for the 
Minister of Education. Has the Minister of 
Education any guidelines for the qualifica- 
tions of a director of education? Can, in 
fact, someone be a director of education 
who only has correspondence courses? 

Mr. Wildman: Are you looking for a job? 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am aware there 
are some guidelines for the director of edu- 
cation. The individual must have been an 
experienced teacher with administrative ex- 
perience as well. I am sure the other spe- 
cific qualifications are outlined somewhere. 
I don't know them at this present time but 
I shall be happy to investigate them. 

I am aware there has been an applicant 
for the role of director of education who did 
indeed achieve some increased qualification 
through correspondence courses. Those are, 
in many instances, valid courses. I would 
have to examine the institution from which 
the qualification was granted in order to 



2254 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



know whether one should look askance or 
sceptically at the qualifications so demon- 
strated by that individual. But there are 
many correspondence courses— to wit the 
ministry's correspondence program— which 
serve many people in outlying areas ex- 
tremely well, not only at the secondary 
school level but also at the post-secondary 
level. 

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, has the Premier, 
after his fleeting visit, left the chamber? 

Mr. Speaker: It appears he has left. 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST 

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Minister 
of Education, Mr. Speaker: Since the minis- 
ter is no doubt aware that today Lisa Spencer 
resigned her position as an elementary school 
teacher with the Toronto board of educa- 
tion in order to avoid any possibility of a 
continuing conflict of interest for her spouse, 
Robert Spencer, a trustee with the Toronto 
board of education, under the present word- 
ing of the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, 
would the minister consider seeking an 
amendment to that Municipal Conflict of 
Interest Act so that it has the effect of the 
criterion her predecessor always applied; 
that is if voting on a question does not put 
money directly in one's pocket, he or she 
has no conflict? Alternatively, would she 
consider amending the act so there is not 
a conflict of interest if a spouse is part of 
a unit represented by a bargaining agent? 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I 
shall be delighted to discuss with my pre- 
decessor his interpretation of the conflict of 
interest portion. I am not sure the statement 
just made by the honourable member for 
Windsor-Sandwich was exactly that which 
I have heard from my predecessor. I shall 
be very pleased to speak to him about it. 

PETITION 

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY 

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to 
standing order 33(b) of the Legislative 
Assembly Act, we, the undersigned, petition 
that the 1977 annual report of Ontario Hydro 
be referred to the standing resources de- 
velopment committee for the purpose, with- 
out limiting the scope of the committee's 
inquiry, of investigating and reporting as 
soon as possible on the matter of defective 
boilers supplied by Babcock and Wflcox 
Canada Limited to Ontario Hydro. 

If the 1978 report is tabled today, the 
petition could, no doubt, be amended 
accordingly. 



INTRODUCTION OF BILLS 

DISTRICT OF PARRY SOUND 
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of 
Bill 100, An Act respecting Local Govern- 
ment in the District of Parry Sound. 

Motion agreed to. 

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this bill 
is essentially the same as Bill 205 which 
was introduced last December. The principal 
changes I can outline very briefly. The name 
"township of North Georgian Bay" has been 
changed to "Georgian Bay Archipelago 
township," and the council will be headed 
by a reeve instead of a mayor. The first 
reeve will be elected by council from among 
the members of the council. In addition, 
the existing townships of— 

Mr. Martel: It sounds like regional govern- 
ment to me. 

Hon. Mr. Wells: —Humphrey and Foley 
will have portions of Conger township an- 
nexed to them. 

Mr. Bradley: Regional government under 
another name. 

Hon. Mr. Wells: Not really. 

The bill also clearly defines the water 
boundaries in front of the town of Parry 
Sound. The start-up date for all these re- 
organizations is January 1, 1980, rather than 
December 1, 1979, to coincide with the 
normal municipal fiscal year. In addition, 
the province wiU not only pay the costs of 
the special elections in Kearney and the 
Georgian Bay Archipelago in 1979 but also 
the costs of the school board elections for 
those areas in 1980 since there would be no 
regular municipal elections at that time. 

PUBLIC UTILITIES AMENDMENT ACT 

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of 
Bill 101, An Act to amend the Public 
Utilities Act. 

Motion agreed to. 

Hon. Mr. Wells: This bill proposes four 
changes to the Public Utilities Act. The first 
will permit the resale of water with the per- 
mission of the municipality and thus enable 
commercial water haulers to resell water from 
a waterworks to persons whose water supply 
has been depleted. 

The second will strengthen the wording of 
section 30 by providing that amounts payable 
for the supply of a public utility are a lien 
upon the lands, in the same manner and to 
the same extent as municipal taxes upon the 
lands. 



MAY 28, 1979 



2255 



(The third will update the provisions for 
electing members of hydro-electric and 
public utilities commissions by making it 
clear that the provisions of the Municipal 
Elections Act, 1977 apply. 

The fourth amendment will delete the 
existing provision which requires Ontario 
Hydro's approval of the salaries paid to mem- 
bers of hydro-electric and public utilities 
commissions. 

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS ACT 

Mr. McClellan moved first reading of Bill 
102, An Act to declare the Rights of Children 
in Ontario. 

Motion agreed to. 

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the purpose 
of this bill is to declare the rights of children 
in Ontario and to provide a means for en- 
forcing those rights through the process of 
judicial declaration. 

The bill sets out a series of 12 rights be- 
longing to every child who is resident in this 
province, and states every parent and the 
government of Ontario has the duty to protect 
these rights. 

In certain circumstances, an application 
can be made to a judge for a determination 
whether a duty to a child has been fulfilled, 
together with the nature of that duty. 

The bill further provides guarantees for 
children in any proceedings concerning 
matters aflFecting the guardianship, custody or 
status of children. 

1 may add, Mr, Speaker, this represents a 
contribution from our caucus to the Inter- 
national Year of the Child. 

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 
ON NOTICE PAPER 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would like to table 
the answer to question number 123, and the 
interim answer to question 181 appearing on 
the Notice Paper. (See appendix, page 2281.) 

ORDERS OF THE DAY 

House in committee of supply. 

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF 
NORTHERN AFFAIRS 

(continued) 

On vote 701, ministry administration pro- 
gram; item 1, main oflBce: 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Chairman, when the 
committee rose last Friday in the examina- 
tion of the estimates of the Ministry of 
Northern Affairs, the honourable member for 
Sudbury was bringing to the attention of 
the House the need to do something in 



northern Ontario with respect to those single- 
resource communities that encounter eco- 
nomic problems as they move down the 
economic life of that resource. He was re- 
ferring specifically to the possible transporta- 
tion problem or the transportation needs be- 
tween the Sudbury basin and Elliot Lake. 

If I might just take a moment, I'd like to 
recognize the very large group of Dryden 
students who are in the gallery today. It is 
an exceptionally large group. I think there 
are close to 60 or 75 students from Dryden 
here today. 
[3:30] 

Of coiu-se, they are assisted by the Young 
Voyageurs program and as well they con- 
tributed handsomely themselves. They have 
made use of that very efficient airline, Nord"- 
air, to come to Toronto and see firsthand 
their government at work. To them we extend 
a very warm welcome, and we hope their 
visit is both very lengthy and very pleasant. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to put into the 
record some proposals that came before us at 
that particular time. Honourable members will 
recall that the mayor of Kapuskasing, Rene 
Piche, through his action committee, made 
some overtures with regard to the improve- 
ment of air service through his area, that 
being from Kapuskasing to Elliot Lake and 
on to Toronto, with a Dash-7. In fact, officials 
of the Ontario Northland Transportation Com- 
mission did a review of the possibilities and 
went so far as to even name it the Miner 
Liner, which, if it were implemented^ would 
move miners from- Sudbury to Elliot Lake 
and retiuTi. The proposal did receive con- 
siderable initial response but was deemed 
impracticable under current circumstances. 
It was reviewed internally by my own minis- 
try back in the spring of 1978, and the con- 
clusions were the same. 

I might say that at that point we had some 
discussions with the federal government on 
the possibility of leasing a Dash-7. We hope 
we can work out an arrangement. But our 
visit to Ottawa to meet with the now extinct 
Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, 
Jack Homer— the great member from Alberta; 
the fellow who can ride a horse— was 
disastrous. 

Mr. Bolan: Never mind whether he can ride 
a horse. Find out if he can fly an airplane or 
get one for the minister. 

Mr. Wildman: What was Otto Lang's posi- 
tion? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: He wasn't at the meet- 
ing. Bob Andras was there, along with Keith 
Penner; Ralph Stewart I believe was there, 
as was Maurice Foster. In fact, Maurice 



2256 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Foster was one of the prime movers, along 
with Rene Piche, of this idea. But we were 
shot down in flames with that idea, because 
it was obvious that the traffic was not there. 
We feel it would take about three years be- 
fore the traffic volume would be sufficient to 
support such a service, at least based on the 
figures we had at that particular time. 

I also want to mention that Mayor Gordon 
of Sudbury has prepared a brief entitled 
"Sudbury-Elliot Lake: Government Policies 
Required to rationalize Economic Develop- 
ment Patterns." This brief calls for the pro- 
vincial government to provide solutions to 
present transportation and communications 
deficiencies between the two urban centres. 
I believe that is what the member from Sud- 
bury was alluding to. 

The brief asks for very considerable out- 
lays of government funds for items such as 
acceleration of the four-laning of highway 
17 west, subsidizing of bus services for com- 
muters between Sudbury and ElHot Lake, 
improved norOntair service between Elliot 
Lake and Sudbury, improved high-speed pas- 
senger rail service between Toronto, Sud- 
bury, Elliot Lake and Sault Ste. Marie, high- 
quality communication Unks through data 
transmission lines, and provision of govern- 
ment services from Sudbury-based personnel 
and facilities for Elliot Lake during the rapid 
urban expansion of that particular com- 
munity. 

It would be premature for me, or even the 
government, to make any comment at this 
time on that brief. It is being reworked, I 
think, with the North Shore communities, 
because there was some reaction to its con- 
tents, of which I am sure the member for 
Algoma is more aware than I am. After the 
brief is reworked and is presented to us, we 
certainly will have a good, close look at it. 

I want to mention, for the benefit of the 
honourable members, some of the provincial 
assistance we have given the Sudbury basin 
during the recent crisis. Members will recall 
the announcement of the $10-million pro- 
vincial building in Sudbury. Many of the 
members from the Sudbury basin were pres- 
ent when my colleague, the Minister of Gov- 
ernment Services (Mr. Henderson), did the 
official sod-turning a little less than a year 
ago. That building is well advanced now and 
is the project providing a consideralble amount 
of employment to the construction trades. 

The Ministry of Northern AflFairs gave a 
specific amount of funding for work to be 
carried out on the Nickeldale Dam by the 
Nickel District Conservation Authority. A 
number of road projects were also included 
for acceleration and improvement in that 



particular area, especially highways 17 and 
108. Members all remember the very sub- 
stantial financial assistance that MNA pro- 
vided for the 2001 venture, a three-year, 
locally-initiated venture, whose thrust to pull 
the community aroimd was the need for in- 
dustrial development right there in the Sud- 
bury basin. The amount of that assistance 
was about $600,000. 

In addition, the ministry has contributed 
to the greening of Sudbinry, which is a pro- 
ject to improve the greening in that par- 
ticular area. Assistance about which I have 
spoken already was given to the Sudbury 
import substitution study and the agricul- 
tural revitalization study. Those are just a 
few of the items we're assisting directly at 
a time of crisis and severe problems that 
municipality is having. Let's hope they will 
be of only a short duration. 

There is also, of course, the work we have 
been doing with DREE people in connection 
with the Walden industrial site. That is just 
a brief review of a number of the items we 
are doing in the Sudbury area that some of 
the members may have forgotten. It is quite 
substantial and I am sure the results will be 
very positive. 

I would like to answer another question 
before I take my seat. The member for 
Algoma (Mr. Wildman) questioned the length 
of time it is taking to build the Bailey bridge 
for Crystal Falls. I am told that it is quite 
a distance for that bridge. It is something 
like 200 yards. The water is exceptionally 
fast and the bridge may require a centre 
structure as support. The approaches were 
gone at both ends. Completion is set for 
August but they are going to try to accelerate 
the date. These are some of the problems 
they are confronted with. 

In the meantime, we will be working 
closely with the Minister of Natural Re- 
sources to provide a larger boat to transport 
the students back and forth. That is not in 
place yet but my staflF told me as recently 
as an hour ago that discussions are well 
advanced. 

Mr. Bolan: Seeing that the minister is in 
such a good mood today in discussing in the 
House the advances the ministry is making 
in transportation in the Sudbury-EUiot Lake 
area, perhaps we could also find out at this 
time just what the minister has to say about 
the cutbacks in bus transportation which 
were introduced by t3ie Ontario Northland 
Transportation Commission last fall. 

There were some cutbacks which were 
made, not in the lucrative runs like the one 
from Toronto to North Bay or from North 
Bay to Timmins, but rather in those areas 



MAY 28, 1979 



2257 



which are not lucrative and where the serv- 
ice is definitely required. I am thinking par- 
ticularly of the area from Timmins to 
Foleyet, which I believe was discontinued 
altogether, and some other routes from Tim- 
mins to Wawa which were very seriously 
cut back. 

Would the minister first of all care to give 
us the reasoning for these cutbacks or dis- 
continuances, and tell us whether or not 
this is the type of policy which the govern- 
ment will pursue in the future, and whether 
or not the policy of the government is to 
look at the bottom line of the bus operation 
and to keep on eflFecting cutbacks as long as 
the bottom line shows red ui^ we see 
black? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Chairman, let me 
point out it is certainly not the government's 
policy, or indeed the Ontario Northland 
Transportation Commission's policy, to just 
cut back service for the sake of cutting 
back to show a profit. There's a certain 
rationalization that has to occur. They are 
charged with the responsibility of running 
an operation within certain guidelines. 

The member will recall the remarks the 
chairman made to the North Bay Chamber 
of Commerce. Management Board in its wis- 
dom and the government in its vdsdom have 
taken certain sections of the ONTC and split 
them up into commercial and non-com- 
mercial. In other words, there's some we 
know should be subsidized and we fully 
accept that responsibility. 

There are others that compete with the 
private sector and they should be carrying 
a fair share of that responsibility. In other 
words, how far do we subsidize those other 
facilities? I can assure the honourable mem- 
ber that it is not a policy of outright cut- 
back and withdrawal of services, only a 
rationalization and improvement in some 
cases where the service is not used and 
maybe a further refinement of the amount 
of traffic is warranted. 

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, in relation to 
that, I would like to ask a supplementary 
on the bus service and make one comment 
in relation to the study my colleague from 
Sudbury discussed last Friday; that is, the 
comment that perhaps there might have been 
more consultation by the Sudbury council in 
preparation of its brief with Elliot Lake and 
with some of the North Shore communities 
that might have allayed some of the con- 
cerns expressed later on. Hopefully, if there 
is an improvement in transportation, and 
certainly bus service, between Sudbury and 
Elliot Lake that will also take into account 



the North Shore communities and the benefits 
that might accrue to them. 

In relation to the question asked by the 
member for Nipissing regarding Ontario 
Northland cutbacks and the minister's reply, 
I just want to point out that the minister 
had indicated to me previously, as had the 
Minister of Transportation and Communica- 
tions (Mr. Snow), that if there was to be 
a cutback in service in the Wawa area this 
would not occur without consultation, and 
secondly, it would take place in relation to 
other services, such as commercial services 
like Greyhound, in the area. 

Yet when the cutback took place cus- 
tomers, small businessmen who used the On- 
tario Northland for freight between Timmins 
and Wawa, did not hear about it until the 
announcement was made in the press, in- 
cluding the owner of the local weekly in 
Wawa, who happened to use the service. He 
didn't know about it until he got the news 
release from Ontario Northland. That hardly 
constitutes prior consultation. 

When I approached the ministry and asked 
for clarification on this and why on earth 
this had happened, I was informed they 
felt they were having to compete with Grey- 
hound on the route between Wawa and 
Sault Ste. Marie, along highway 17 and that 
people could use Greyhound. Apparently, 
Ontario NortUand and the ministry were 
unaware at that point that Greyhound had 
just previously cut its service. 

In order to spend a day in Sault Ste. Marie 
shopping or visiting friends or doing business 
there, if you want to go by bus and get 
there early in the morning you have to leave 
Wawa at 3 a.m. This is hardly an adequate 
service. It seems to me we need some kind 
of explanation as to why, first, there wasn't 
prior consultation with the people involved 
and the people afFected; and second, why is 
it Ontario Northland was so unaware of 
what Greyhound was doing? 
[3:45] 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Chairman, I'm 
sure the honourable member is aware that 
foUovdng his communications wdth me the 
chairman of the ONR did make a personal 
effort to go into those communities and to 
meet personally with those people and ex- 
plain the actions of the ONR. 

Mr. Wildman: That was after. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: To say the least, I think 
they were favourably accepted once he 
explained to them the reasons for it. They 
are reasonable people; they are businessmen 
themselves and the problem was resolved. 

I'll agree vdth the member there was a 
breakdown in communications and I hope 



2258 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



that doesn't happen again. I do feel strongly 
that when the service is being reduced or 
changed in any way those customers who 
are directly involved should be notified as 
early as possible. The staflE have been 
aware of this shortcoming and they will at- 
tempt not to repeat it in the future. 

Item 1 agreed to. 

On item 2, analysis and plaiming: 

Mr. Wildman: Again I'd like to go briefly 
to the role of the ministry. We were told 
in our analysis of the planning activity that 
the role is inter-ministerial— participating in 
committees, proposals emanating from other 
ministries and so on. I'd like to know what 
involvement this ministry has had vdth the 
various studies on government changes, such 
as the bill introduced this afternoon by the 
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. 
Wells) with regard to the Parry Sound area. 

Mr. Bolan: That's in northern Ontario 
too. 

Mr. Wildman: Yes, I know it is; that's 
why I mentioned it. 

Mr. Bolan: But they don't know it. 

Mr. Wildman: I understand there are a 
large number of studies going on. One is in 
the Blind River area regarding possible 
municipal annexation of other areas around 
Blind River. There is one that deals with 
the Smooth Rock Falls area, around Strick- 
land and Fauquier. There is one in the 
Kirkland Lake area; and of course, there is 
also one in the Sault Ste. Marie north area, 
in my own riding. What is this ministry's 
role, if any, in these studies by the Min- 
istry of Intergovernmental Affairs on changes 
in the municipal organization? Some of 
them include annexation of unorganized 
areas or smaller municipalities, or the estab- 
lishment of new municipalities in northern 
Ontario. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Chairman, we are 
very much involved in those studies. The 
staff teamwork is very evident. It shone 
through in the preparation of the Local 
Services Board Act. That was a typical 
example. 

As the act was moving ahead the com- 
munication between the two ministries was, 
to say the least, excellent from the minister 
right down to all members of both ministries. 
We do have an involvement. We are able 
to provide the northern input which is so 
important in these studies. I think there 
are 12 or 15 studies, if memory serves me 
correctly, going on right across northern 
Ontario now. We are looking at various 
forms of annexations and new government 



structures and that type of thing. So we 
have a direct link and we are able to put 
that northern feeling into it. Some people 
down here think there will be massive 
amounts of growth in these areas, but that 
is not necessarily the case. The records 
show that over the last 10 or 15 years we 
haven't had the kind of growth some people 
down here feared. It's those kinds of things 
we're able to express to the Ministry of In- 
tergovernmental Affairs. 

I'm personally confident, after discussions 
with the present minister, that he is very 
much aware of our feelings. The ministry 
is very cognizant of northern affairs and 
they're relying on us for input, at least of 
the attitudes that we sense in northern 
Ontario. So we are there and we have the 
opportunity to provide input and to share 
with that ministry any proposals that come 
forward. 

Mr. Wildman: All right, I'll accept that. 
I just noticed this afternoon that when the 
Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) 
made a statement with regard to ElHot Lake, 
he referred to the tabling of a report I had 
referred to earlier in these estimates, the En- 
virorraient Assessment Board's report. In that 
report it states there are going to be serious 
problems, in terms of services among other 
things, completely apart from the immediate 
environmental impact of the expansion. That 
is environmental in the normal sense of the 
word; in the wider sense there are going to 
be serious problems with services such as 
hospitals and many others, even such things 
as waste disposal. 

In the statement made today by the min- 
ister, he thanked specifically a number of 
other ministries, the Ministry of Housing 
and so on, for co-operating with his ministry 
in appearing before the Environmental As- 
sessment Board hearing, as well as a number 
of other agencies in the community, sudh as 
companies, unions and the town of Ellioit 
Lake. 

Was your ministry involved at all in the 
environmental assessment hearings in Elliot 
Lake; and is it going to be involved in the 
plans for the provision of services? I note 
what you have said about Atikokan in terms 
of communities that are experiencing a de- 
pression in their economies and what your 
ministry has attempted to do. What about a 
community that is booming? There seems to 
be a problem here, in that as long as things 
are booming I detect a feeling on the part 
of the government that everything is fine. 
However, if things are slowing down, then 



MAY 28, 1979 



2259 



perhaps we have problems we should) look 
at. 

We should be looking at Sudbury, I cer- 
tainly would agree there; but what about a 
community that is going so fast it's very 
difficult for the town officials to keep up with 
the kind of expansion taking place, as in 
Elliot Lake? 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: In connection with the 
Elliot Lake situation, as I have pointed out 
on many occasions we are not a line min- 
istry. We don't have the technical i>eople, 
such as the Ministry of the Environment has 
for environmental problems or design en- 
gineers for highways or the input the Min- 
istry of Housing would have; but that co- 
ordinating role is there and we are involved. 
While we are not there on a front-line basis, 
I think it's fair to say we are included in 
those discussions. We don't carry forward the 
thrust in the same way we would in Ati- 
kokan. 

The government's feeling is very clear in 
that here is a community which has an ex- 
cellent contract with Ontario Hydro. That 
contract includes many of the amenities the 
workers wiU require; it's all-inclusive. The 
programs are in place to assist a community 
like Elliot Lake. I do recognize the fact that 
they need some up-front money to get started. 
There is no question about that. I'm hopeful 
that will be resolved. 

It's difficult to compare the problems of 
ElHot Lake with Atikokan or even Pickle 
Lake, They are of a completely different 
magnitude. The ministries are directly in- 
volved. They have the programs in place. 
The mayor, Roger Taylor, is very much 
aware of the route he can follow, and he is 
following it very aggressively. I'm sure that 
following the tabling of this report he will 
be more aggressive than ever, which is the 
way it should be. 

Mr. Wildman: New Democrats are often 
aggressive. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He doesn't brag about 
being a New Democrat, let's make that clear. 

Mr. Wildtnan: He ran once. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He doesn't mention it 
any more; at least not in my company though 
maybe in yours. He is an excellent admin- 
istrator for the community; I'm sure he will 
be there for a long time because he has the 
community at heart. I think it's fair to say 
he knows his way around very effectively. 
I exx)ect to be hearing more from the mayor 
in the not-too-distant future. 

I say to you now that ff he requires any 
co-ordinating resi)onsibilities. While we don't 
want to take on responsibility in a lead min- 



istry concept in Elliot Lake, we would be 
prepared to assist him of course, and he is 
very much aware of that. 

Mr. Bolan: Just arising from the minister's 
answers to that, he says that his is not a line 
ministry in Elliot Lake but that he is in- 
cluded in discussions. In what capacity is 
the minister included in these discussions? He 
says that his presence is there. Just what is 
he doing there, or is his position not more 
redundant than anything else? 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, we would 
be included in those very early discussions 
with the staff, the possibility that there are 
some discussions or some possibility of going 
the DREE route as an example, the DREE 
route, the Ontario-DREE agreement, if there 
is some way we can work in. I don't think 
there is, but that possibility exists under our 
community priorities branch. There may be 
some special funding that Elliot Lake would 
require that would look to our community 
priority budget to fund. So if we can get that 
input early in the game then we know what's 
going on from there. The actual delivery of 
the services is not our responsibility. 

Mr. Martel: Mr. Minister, I want to go back 
to talking about planning. There was a 
cabinet committee formed a couple of years 
ago when the Inco layoffs were annoimced 
and there were repeated efforts to get in- 
formation from the Treasurer, who was named 
chairman of that committee, and we tried to 
get some information from the Premier (Mr. 
Davis) with respect to the study that was 
supposed to be conducted by that cabinet 
committee. 

Can the minister tell me what in fact 
happened? Did that committee sit at all? 
Have they got any long-term or short-term 
policies for those municipalities which are 
effected when mining companies decide it's 
time to abandon the ship? I might say that 
both the Premier and the Treasurer have 
answered and I wanted to tell the minister 
what they have said. The Premier has indi- 
cated: "It's got to be economicalliy enticing 
for industries to stay in." 

Mr. Bolan: Viable. 

Mr. Martel: Viable, yes. National Steel in 
Capreol made $6.5 million. That isn't what 
we're talking about when we ask what backup 
policies or what policies there are when a 
municipality is affected by a sudden shut- 
down of a one-industry town. What solutions 
has tlie minister got? It isn't a case of giving 
the industry more money, because in the case 
of National Steel or the case of Inco, they 
were both making money and they left. Now 
what are the minister's short-term policies 



2260 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



that came out of that committee and what are 
the long term solutions that came out of that 
committee? 

Don't tell me a'bout DREE agreements for 
the Sudbury basin because we've already got 
three industrial sites in Sudbury, so that isn't 
going to help us. None of them is filled and 
none of them can attract anything. The 
problem of northeastern Ontario, as it is with 
northwestern Ontario, is that beyond extrac- 
tive industries it's very difficult if not near 
impossible to get secondary industry to locate. 
While the minister always indicates that I 
want to use a big stick, that's not really the 
case at all, but his solution of handouts has 
not worked to bring secondary industry to 
the north. 

What alternatives are there? The minister 
sayis: "Don't use the big stick. That's your 
way of doing it." What is the minister's? If 
he would be so kind to tell me I would know, 
because I have been hearing about secondary 
industry coming into the Sudbury basin since 
I was that high. We still haven't got a 
secondary industry. We had a commissioner 
in Sudbury, they finally let him go just re- 
cently because after paying his high and 
fancy salary for three or four years they still 
hadn't located anything there. 

Mr. Bolan: What about Darcy McKeough? 

Mr. Martel: Yes, that's right. Darcy said 
there would be no secondary industry in 
northeastern Ontario for 20 years. I want to 
know what policy the minister has to attract 
secondary industry related to the natural 
resources which are being exploited, and 
while he might say: "Well, we don't want 
the big stick approach," can he tell me what 
approach he is going to use? 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: As the honourable mem- 
ber is very much aware, I beheve the com- 
mittee is still ongoing under a new chair- 
man. The Minister of Natural Resources is the 
new chairman of that committee. I might say 
on this point, Mr. Chairman, that finding 
solutions for single-resource communities is 
not an easy thing. I think the honourable 
member will recognize that. It is not some- 
thing where you sit down around a table and 
somebody comes up with an answer and you 
run off and you implement it. It's just not 
that easy. 
[4:00] 

Mr. Bolan: The problems didn't start today, 
Leo. 

Hon. Mr, Bernier: I know and it's ongoing. 
I remember vividly, and I am sure there are 
things that will escape my memory, but the 
2001 funding is an example of what came 
out of that committee. The people of the city 



of Sudbury rallied tgether and I still marvel 
at the way they did rally together. I was 
pleased to see the honourable member there 
at the 2001 conference, standing up along 
with his colleagues from the Sudbury basin; 
cheering, applauding the Premier that night, 
at the university, with smiles^ 

Mr. Bolan: That was for TV. 

Mr. Martel: That's stretching it. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You recall the evening 

well. 

Mr. Martel: I recall the evening well. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I was there and I en- 
joyed every minute of it; it was a pleasant 
experience. It was a pleasant experience to 
see a very community-oriented and initiated 
idea get off the ground and it certainly stem- 
med from discussions we had in that partic- 
ular committee. The transportation idea for 
the Miner Liner also originated in those dis- 
cussions we had. We looked into the eco- 
nomics of it in deptii. So to say that the 
committee just sat and did nothing is entirely 
wrong. In fact, since we last spoke here, at 
which time the possibility of improved and 
increased secondary manufacturing for min- 
ing equipment in northern Ontario was 
brought up, I have taken it upon myself to 
make a couple of contacts with some of the 
major firms in Ontario and asked tiie very 
simple, positive question which I have asked 
a number of times before. I get the same 
answer, whi(^h has to do with the tariff con- 
dition, believe it or not, the federal tariff. 

Mr. Martel: There's no tariff. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They tell me there is. 

Mr. Martel: No, if the equipment is not 
produced in Canada there is no tariff. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, but they can pro- 
duce it outside of Canada much cheaper and 
be more competitive than if they were pro- 
ducing it here. If they produced it here they 
wouldn't be able to compete with outside im- 
ports, so it makes it very difficult for them. 
They made it very clear t!hat it is just com- 
petition on a world market situation. While 
Canada does have the expertise and the tech- 
nical knowledge, the actual manufacturing 
can be done outside 6f Canada in other coun- 
tries of the world and brought back here and 
sold here cheaper than we can produce it 
here. 

It happens, I suppose, with television sets 
and with radios and a number of other 
things. It galls me, as weU as members on 
the other side of the House. It bothers me, 
there's no question about that. Particularly 
when we mill and mine the ore here, and 



MAY 28, 1979 



2261 



refine it to a certain point. I tliink I should 
read into the record that North Bay Nugget 
editorial. At this point I think the member 
for Nipissing would like me to read into the 
record the Nugget editorial of May 24. He's 
nodding; he's concurring, I gather? 

Mr. Bolan: Go ahead. My wife didn't write 
it, I can assure you of that. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I have a great deal of 
respect for that northern Ontario newspaper. 
They look at things very objectively. 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Even when Mike's 
wife writes the article? 

Mr. Bolan: That's right; she only writes 
them on education. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: There's a little weak- 
ness once in a while, but I would say the 
greater percentage of the time the tone and 
the thrust is what I think what it should be. 
Anyway the editorial reads as such; and if 
you will bear with me, Mr. Chairman, I 
would like to read it into the record. It's 
captioned "Mining Association Director 
Makes Some Excellent Points." Does the 
member recall that editorial? 

Mr. Martel: No, I don't get the North 
Bay Nugget. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I will read it to you 
then. 

"Now that the election is history, we think 
the following opinions of Mr. John L. Bonus, 
managing director of the Mining Association 
of Canada deserve to be made known. 

"Mr. Bonus commented on Ed Broadbent's 
views in a letter to the editor df the Toronto 
Globe and Mail. In view of the importance of 
mining in northern Ontario, we feel Mr. 
Bonus makes some good points as follows: 
Mr. Broadbent's argument is that for years 
we have been exploiting our resources in raw 
form, thus denying Canadians job opportuni- 
ties which would be open to them if they 
processed those resources prior to export. He 
claims this practice is caused essentially by 
the large percentage of foreign control in the 
resource industries. With regard to mining, I 
offer the following observations. 

"A substantial proportion of Canadian 
minerals are processed domestically before 
export or find their way into Canadian 
manufactured goods which are sold in Canada 
or exported. There are at present 16 smelters 
and 15 refineries ox>erating in Canada which 
employ over 35,000 individuals in the 
further processing of raw ores. Between 60 
to 70 per cent of all copper, silver and lead 
mined is processed into refined metal in 
Canada. 



"Virtually all raw nickel produced in 
Canada is processed to some degree here at 
home, and 50 per cent is processed to 
refined metal. More than 86 per cent of the 
raw iron ore produced is processed to 
beneficiated ore that goes directly into the 
making of steel in Canadian steel mills. 
Canada's zinc-reduction capacity is the third 
largest in the world, and about 50 per cent 
of production is domestically processed to 
refined metal. 

"Unlike the other resource sectors, non- 
ferrous metal mining, smelting and refining 
operations are approximately 70 per cent 
Canadian controlled. An even larger segment 
of the non-petroleum mineral industry is un- 
der exclusive Canadian management. More 
than 250,000 individtial Canadians participate 
as direct shareholders of Canadian mining 
firms. In 1978, these companies paid divi- 
dends to shareholders totalHng $371 million. 

"There is absolutely nothing by way of 
legislation or constraints preventing a Cana- 
dian entrepreneur from purchasing a Cana- 
dian-mined mineral or producing from it a 
processed or a manufactured article or com- 
modity for export. If there are not enough 
entrepreneurs to do so, it must be because 
they have concluded that opportunities are 
just not there to be exploited. 

"Why? Because most large mineral- 
consuming countries or markets^he United 
States, the European Economic Community, 
Japan— typically impose tariffs or some form 
of non-tariff barriers on processed or manu- 
factured mineral products to protect their 
own industries. Most raw materials imported 
into these markets enter duty-free. 

"Why can we not impose on such markets 
a condition that if they want our minerals, 
they will have to purchase them in pro- 
cessed or manufactured form? Because we 
have no monopoly on supply." 

That's why we can't. 

"Purchasers would have little diflSculty in 
obtaining their mineral requirements else- 
where, and many new sources of supply 
are coming on stream. Canada can and does 
try to negotiate better access for its pro- 
cessed and manufactured goods, but her 
bargaining position is not all that strong.' 

That lays out quite clearly the fact we 
don't have a monopoly position in the world 
market situation. 

Mr. Martel: We had the nickel monopoly 
for years. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: We are still producing 
just as much, but that has gone down to 30 
per cent because the world is using that 
much more and they are getting it from 



2262 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



other sources. Those are the problems we 
have got to realize, and we have got to be 
practical about it. Look at yourself in the 
mirror and say: "This is the problem." You 
can't just resolve it overnight. 

I say to you while there is concern with 
single-resource communities and we share 
your concerns equally, we don't really have 
any immediate answers at our fingertips. We 
do know there will always be places like 
Atikokan. Red Lake is still there; Geraldton 
is still there; Kirkland Lake is still there; 
they are all there. Sure they are not as 
large as they were before; but I can tell 
you one thing, that I was at Atikokan 30 
years ago when they turned the first shovel 
of iron ore; and the people moved into 
that community and said: "We will be here 
for 30 years.'* 

They knew it 30 years ago; and they 
accepted the fact. They have gone through 
one generation. They have built their homes; 
they sent their kids to university, and they 
have had 30 years of a good Hfe. Now they 
know; and they knew 30 years ago, so 
there isn't the hard feeling in Atikokan you 
would lead us to believe. There is a new 
thrust in Atikokan, there is a new direction 
in Atikokan, and the government is there 
to help them. 

The Hydro plant went into Atikokan. The 
new thrust with our lead ministry concept 
is working very closely with the industrial 
commissioner in Atikokan. New highways are 
being built in the area. There is the ex- 
pansion of the airport and a greater em- 
phasis on Quetico Park. Ail these things are 
happening; and they all revolve. Geraldton 
is a typical example. The population of 
Geraldton is larger today than it was when 
McLeod and Cockshutt was operating there, 
when the gold mining companies were all 
going great guns. Geraldton is larger today, 
and there is not a mine operating in 
Geraldton. It is a comfortable, little northern 
community. It has a good, strong base, and 
the security the community provides its 
people is second to none in northern Ontario. 

I know the honourable member is con- 
cerned. We are concerned too. We are con- 
cerned about the forests; we are concerned 
about the nonrenewable resources. We are 
not going to stop looking for solutions — ^not 
at all. While we don't have the answers at 
our fingertips, I can assure him we will go 
on looking for those answers. 

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, the minister 
gets up and quotes from an article written 
by somebody having something to do with 
the mining association — 



Hon. Mr. Bemier: The great mining au- 
thority in Canada, Mr. Bonus. 

Mr. Bolan: I can assure you that it wasn't 
written by anyone at the Nugget. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: The Nugget had the 
courage to carry it. 

Mr. Martel: Yes, the courage. The North- 
ern Miner had the courage to carry it too, 
I am sure. 

The minister says, "We don't have enough 
of it to control." What did we do when we 
had 95 per cent of the world's production 
of nickel? The Tories were in power then; 
I was in high school, and I can recall when 
the Tories came to power. We had 95 per 
cent up until 10 or 15 years ago. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: We are still producing 
the same amount. 

Mr. Martel: But we had 95 per cent. What 
did we extract from them that would stay 
in Ontario and in Canada? We do not even 
get all the refining. At the same time. Falcon- 
bridge has yet to refine a pound of nickel 
in Canada, after 45 years. That area pro- 
duced 95 per cent of the world's nickel. 
What did we bargain for? What did we get 
for the citizens of Ontario? What did we get 
for the city of Sudbury? What did we get 
in terms of not only refining but also some 
fabrication when 95 per cent of the world's 
nickel came from that one area? One cannot 
play that game today. The deck has changed; 
the game has changed. We still produce 
more, but it only represents 35 per cent. 
But when we had it all, what did the govern- 
ment do? 

Mr. Worton: The cards have changed; not 
the game. 

Mr. Martel: They change the deck when- 
ever they want. What did the government 
do then? Nothing. The same pious arguments 
were used when I came in here 12 years 
ago, I say to the minister. The same silly 
arguments were being used then as are being 
used now. The minister recalls 1969 when 
he brought in a motion about refining in 
Ontario. 

What have we got? We have 38 exemp- 
tions continuing with mining — 38 exemp- 
tions to continue to process abroad — and we 
have 325,000 people in Ontario unemployed. 
We have had one one-industry town after 
another going down the pipe in those 12 
years. 

What have we done? I know the solution 
is not easy. Three years ago, when this min- 
istry was created, I put forward a motion 
saying that, in the area of nonrenewable 
resources, part of the revenue from those 
extractive industries should be put into a 



MAY 28, 1979 



2263 



fund— I called it a "Tomorrow" fund, for want 
of a better name — so that when we did have 
a one-industry town where the bottom fell 
out we would have some capital in the bank, 
so to speak, to establish some other alter- 
native for that community. The minister re- 
calls how the vote went: It went down the 
tube. 

Part of the problem in northern Ontario — 
and I spent four years on the select com- 
mittee studying economic and cultural na- 
tionalism; we listened to all the businessmen, 
and they all said the same thing to us: "If 
we are a Canadian company, it is very 
difficult to get money from the Canadian 
banks." The same business with an American 
owner gets a loan from a Canadian bank; 
a Canadian businessman owning a company, 
going to the bank, does not get the loan. 
[4:15] 

A "Tomorrow" fund of some sort, taking 
a percentage of the tax we get on the rev- 
enue from the extraction of trees or minerals 
would establish a fund on which we could 
draw. You turned it down. That would be 
a long-term solution that should have come 
out of your committee. 

In fact, virtually nothing came out of 
that committee. You talk about 2001. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Careful, 

Mr. Martel: Do you think that $600,000 
is going to replace 2,400 jobs at Inco and 
750 jobs at Falconbridge? We all know 
that by the time the strike is over Inco 
will be where it wants to be with about 
9,000 workers, which is about 2,000 fewer 
at the end of the layoffs. You're not going 
to put opportunities for young people into 
northern Ontario with a cottage-type in- 
dustry. It could pick up some of the slack, 
but surely it can't be small, cottage-type 
industries that are going to resolve the mas- 
sive layoffs that occur in one-industry com- 
munities like Sudbury. 

I am still waiting for one of the solutions 
you were going to come up with. I was 
breathless when I heard you say that you 
were considering the establishment of rapid 
transit to Elliot Lake. I stood in this place 
nine years ago and said we should have 
centred regions where there would be only 
one municipality which would be served 
with all the infrastructure and we would 
move out to tap the resources. There are 
800 or 900 people from Sudbury working 
in Elliot Lake and they don't have any 
homes. Where is the rapid transit you 
talked about at the time of the layoffs two 
years ago. 

Mr. Wildman: He says he is studying It. 



Mr. Martel: He is going to study it to 
death. You had time to build it. 

You're going to have to increase the in- 
frastructure in Elliot Lake. It's a one- 
industry town too. What happens when 
you increase that infrastructure and that re- 
source runs out? What do you do then? 
You watch those millions that you put into 
sewage and water treatment facilities go 
down the tube too? Or would you be better 
off going out tomorrow and driving the first 
spike to get a rapid transit system into 
Elliot Lake, which could carry those work- 
ers over to Elliot Lake in maybe an hour's 
time. I am told that it is only 50 or 60 
miles across country. 

If we did that sort of planning and pro- 
ceeded with it, one could say that we were 
getting over the hangup of building new 
towns at every mine site. There is already 
an infrastructure in Elliot Lake. There is 
a tremendous shortage of housing. I am not 
trying to detract from what is going on m 
Elliot Lake at all. I'm saying that 700, 800 
or 900 of those workers probably live in Sud- 
bury now. Let's get a system whereby 
they can get to work and back and main- 
tain their homes in Sudbury without costing 
us any more money except to put the transit 
system in. 

EUiot Lake, like all mines, from the time 
you take the first shovelful out you are work- 
ing towards the end of it. I know that and 
you know that. We continue to build town- 
sites. It is a waste of money. You are 
going to have to do it this time because it 
is simply too far away, we take that into 
consideration. But you have had two years 
to deal with the Inco layoffs and you are no 
further ahead with getting a rapid transit 
system into Elliot Lake so that we can keep 
those workers in Sudbury without having to 
start building a whole lot of stuff and see it 
go belly up in Sudbury. 

Why is this? I would have hoped a great 
committee— from the deliberations of which 
no one can lay out what you decided— at 
least would make some decisions. As I 
stand here, I am convinced that committee 
has not really grappled with the problem. It 
has really not put down on paper what the 
solutions are or what are the short-term 
plans. When the minister says to me: "In 
Red Lake, they knew it was only going to 
last 30 years"; I asked the minister: "Who 
loses in that type of operation?" The only 
guy who loses is the average Joe. He goes in 
and builds his house. The mining industry, 
through profits and writeoffs and whatnots, 
gets out with money ahead. But tlie 
worker's whole life-savings is one house 



2264 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



over a lifetime, unless he happens to be a 
lawyer. And what does he do? He can't 
even sell it for the going rate. 

In my hometown, with 140 homes for sale 
right now, the bottom has dropped out. They 
can't commute between any mining com- 
munity and Capreol to go to work, and 
they're not going to find work in Sudbury. 
It's not like Metro Toronto, where you can 
go somewhere else when you lose 250 jobs. 
You cant commute up there. The bottom 
drops out. The guy loses his shkt. 

The mining industry never loses. The 
workers lose. They lose because they put a 
lot of money into a home, and when the 
bottom drops out, they get nothing, or rela- 
tively very little. 

And we have no solutions. That committee 
didn't have short-term solutions and I don't 
think it's got long-term solutions. I -wish the 
minister would produce them if he has. I 
wish he would bring over for us tomorrow 
night what it is that's the short-term policy 
that came out of that committee and what— 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I just told you. 

Mr. Martel: Don't tell me 2001 is the short- 
term solution for the problems of the city of 
Sudbury. That's just ridiculous. It might help, 
but it's not the solution to 3,150 jobs from 
the union, and how many from management. 
That's the solution? You can't be serious. 

Let me turn to the other one, the pro- 
duction of mining equipment. It took my staff 
six months to be able to put that together. 
Everywhere we phoned it was most difficult 
to try and get any information. We wrote to 
every mining company in the province about 
where they were purchasing most of their 
equipment. We got four answers from Inco, 
Falconbridge, Noranda, and I believe 
Denison. They were all discouraging. 

In fact, before the select committee J. Edwin 
Carter from Inco said we shouldn't get into 
mining equipment in this part of the world 
because it's cyclical too. 

The primary producing countries are 
Sweden, Germany and the United States. All 
of those have wages as high as Canada. The 
real problem is tariffs. If the equipment isn't 
produced in Canada it comes into Canada 
tariff-free. The only people who are smart 
enough to overcome that are the Japanese. 
They allow raw material in tariff-free. In fact 
the more you process it, the higher the tariff. 

Why do they want it that way? They want 
jobs for their people. So they don't levy any 
tariffs if you just take it out. 

I'm told, for example, they don't even limb 
trees from British Columbia anymore. They 
just throw them in the boat and away you 
go. They got around nickel. They went in 



with Inco and they've established a firm in 
Japan which is partially owned by Inter- 
national Nickel to get at Indonesia. 

What do we do? We can't even go into a 
field that's a natural for us, mining equip- 
ment. It's a natural for us because we have 
the internal mjurket. We should be smart 
enough to set up tax policies which would 
encourage the purchase of Canadian-produced 
equipment. 

But we don't do that either. We simply 
make a few phone calls and the company 
says no, it's not viable. I think it is viable. 
The statistics show us with a trade deficit in 
all mining equipment of $1.6 billion annually. 
If that isn't viable for us to get involved in, 
there is something wrong. That is what I say 
when I say to the minister nobody's talking 
about a big stick, but this government, based 
on two select committee reports, should get 
off its backside and start to bring together 
the expertise that would see the development 
of that type of industry in Canada and in 
Ontario, particularly northern Ontario, where 
we have a school of mining, where we have 
the resources, where we have such a desperate 
need for some secondary industry. I suspect 
Jarvis Clark is managing to start out with 
some proper type of government— and I 
don't mean intervention, but government 
involvement. We might expand that a lot 
larger. We might encourage it. As I under- 
stand it, they primarily bring the parts in— 

Mr. Bolan: They make everything right 
there. 

Mr. Martel: Do they make the parts too? 
I was told not. That's good. That's what we 
should be moving to. That represents just 
what we should be going to. This govern- 
ment should be out there front and centre 
trying to encourage that whole field in north- 
em Ontario, because everything is there. We 
also happen to be the only country that im- 
ports the amount of mining equipment that 
is imported into this country. No other coun- 
try even comes close to us, yet we produce 
as much in mineral wealth as the United 
States. We don't see the Americans importing 
it all. They manufacture some. 

We have a production capacity in mineral 
wealth nearly as great as the United States 
and we import our equipment from them. 
They're smarter than us. They make it there 
themselves. The minister says I want to use a 
big club, but when the private sector doesn't 
want to do things we in this country immedi- 
ately throw our hands up in despair. Or we 
do what the Minister of Industry and Tour- 
ism is doing, we try to buy it in. We can't 
buy it in. We spent several million dollars on 



MAY 28, 1979 



2265 



a select committee, which several of the min- 
ister's colleagues were on, which said: "No, 
discourage that sort of thing. Encourage in- 
vestment, but portfolio investment, not 
equity." We don't. His colleagues signed that. 
Maybe he should read the report some day. 
Hon. Mr. Bemier: You wrote it. 
Mr. Martel: I didn't write the report. My 
colleague, the former member for Wentworth 
( Mr. Deans ) and I wrote it. If your seven 
colleagues were swung over by my persuasive 
arguments, and they signed the document- 
Mr. Bolan: More power to you. 
Mr. Martel: That's right— then I did a good 
job. I'm just saying that there's a field that 
two select committees— the last one had 18 
members— identified mining equipment. My 
friend from Nipissing was on that select com- 
mittee. There were nine of the minister's col- 
leagues on that and they said mining equip- 
ment, because of the recital I gave last week 
of the reasons why. I say if the private sector 
says no all by itself, what's wrong with us 
getting involved with them and saying yes 
for the benefit of Canada. For the amount of 
mining we do, we just think it's absolutely 
necessary. 

We might go in as a partner; we might 
give them some money just to be nice. We 
might lend them some money. We might pro- 
vide grants, but we've got to start it in a 
large way to make a viable industry, not only 
for internal consumption but for export pur- 
poses, because if Sweden, with only nine mil- 
lion people, can become one of the leading 
producers in that field, Ontario is almost that 
big. 

Mr. Makarchuk: No, no; Sweden is smaller. 

Mr. Martel: I think they have nine million 
people though. 

Mr. Makarchuk: Less than Ontario though. 

Mr. Martel: Less than Ontario, so what's 
wrong with us? 

Mr. Laughren: Global product mandate. 

Mr. Martel: I want to tell the minister, 
before he has a bird about Sweden, there is 
more free enterprise in Sweden than there 
is in Canada. His colleagues were surprised 
when they learned that when we went to 
Sweden. What do you do anyway? You buy 
house insurance, fire insiirance, job insm"ance 
and medical insurance. You talk about cradle 
to the grave, only we give it to the free 
enterprise system in this society, but it's pro- 
tection from the cradle to the grave anyway. 
That's all nonsense. Those countries were 
able to develop, to become leaders in mining 
equipment and in automobiles. They export 
two cars— 



[4:30] 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Three himdred 
years of non-participation in any kind of war 
certainly helped them, particularly wfhen they 
could sell the instruments of war to other 
people. 

Mr. Martel: Do you know what my friends 
at Inco were doing? 

Mr. Wildman: Inco was selling to both 
sides. 

Mr. Martel: Let me tell you how we got a 
refinery at Port Colbome. In 1916 we found 
Inco loading U-boats in New York. That's 
how come dear old Inco got so generous and 
came to Ontario and built the refinery at 
Port Colbome— when ithey finally got caught 
loading U-boats in the United States in 1916. 
Don't tell me about their great patriotism. It 
was non-existent. 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I didn't say any- 
thing about patriotism. You were asking why 
Sweden was able to do certain things. 

Mr. Martel: Because government got in- 
volved with the private sector to encourage 
the production of mining equipment. It got 
automobiles, and they now export two makes. 
We aren't in any of that. All I'm suggesting 
is that if there is a way you want to help 
northern Ontario, the key sector is to move 
to a field such as mining equipment. I don't 
care how, just as long as we do it. 

There are suggestions I made several years 
ago which, had we carried them out then, 
would have provided some of the funding to 
put up some of the capital in order to get 
it established. I said let's establish a "to- 
morrow" fund from the returns paid to the 
province from the use of our resources so 
we would have a bankroll when things go 
badly in those communities. We haven't done 
any of those things. 

I come back to where I started. I say to 
the minister I have heard for the 12 years 
I've been here that we're going to get some- 
thing in the north, and we haven't. I have 
heard before that we're going to get second- 
ary industry in the north and we really have 
not. We have continued to exploit primarily. 

When the free-enterprise system, as you 
like to describe it, decides it's not going there, 
what are the alternatives? It's not a case of a 
big stick. Is there no alternaltive where gov- 
ernment can get involved? 

You do it all the time. When you give 
Ford $68 million, that's a type of involve- 
ment. Don't tell me about the big stick. All 
you're doing is paying for it. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: It wasn't $68 million. 



2266 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Mr. Martel: Well, the federal government 
gave them $40 million and you gave them 
$28 million for a total of how much? Was 
that government involvement? 

There is only one taxpayer in this country. 
It doesn't matter w^hether it came from you 
or from the feds, there's only one taxpayer. 

Mr. Wildman: The Premier himself said 
that today. 

Mr. Martel: All I'm saying is that you have 
the strangest philosophy over there. When it 
doesn't suit you, you say, "Ah, buit you guys 
want to Interfere using the big stick," or, 
"You're interfering in the free enterprise sys- 
tem." But then you turn around and what 
do you s:ay? You say, "Here, free enterprise, 
here's 68 million bucks, compliments of the 
people of Ontario." 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Why? Why did we do 
that? 

Mr. Martel: I suspect because Ford threat- 
ened to go somewliere else. Sure, you think 
you can play the game of Russian roulette 
with those big companies against the United 
States, and I tell you you're crazy. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Are you against Ford? 

Mr. Martel: No, no; you see, it's an either- 
or proposition. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Well you can't have it 
both ways. 

Mr. Martel: Why? I would say to them, 
"Look, companies, we in this country have 
decided we're going to go a different route. 
We're going to put up the capital we're 
giving to you, but instead of taking $68 
million and giving it to Ford, we're going to 
plunk $68 million into the development of a 
mining equipment corporation." 

We'll not only have the jobs. You see, 
what Ford doesn't do in this country is re- 
search and development. It doesn't do any 
research and development in Canada; it's all 
done in Dearborn. We would say to our min- 
ing equipment company, "Patent rights will 
belong to us. Royalty fees will be paid here. 
Profits will be paid here. Jobs will remain 
here. Offshoots from your research and devel- 
opment will be produced' here." 

You can't do that with Ford, because R and 
D is done there; you pay service to Ithem; 
royalties go there; offshoots from R and D 
are produced there. 

Wliy don't we take our money and start 
to manufacture some of that raw material 
into a finished commodity for our own use 
here and for export purposes? One of the 
key areas is mining equipment. The minister's 
response is, "You can't have it both ways. 
You interfere in the free enterprise system. 



You guys want to use a big stick." Yet you 
use all those things yourself when it's con- 
venient. The government pumps money into 
the free enterprise system and calls it free 
enterprise; I call that socialism. If you want 
to be a free enterpriser, for God's sake, that's 
fine, but don't ask the government for a 
handout. 

Mr. Bolan: Be consistent. 

Mr. Martel: Yes, where is there free 

enterprise when you give dear old Ford 

$68 million? That's not free enterprise; 
that's socialism. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You want the union 
dues from it. 

Mr. Martel: I get lots of union dues; oh 
my God, do we ever. I wish I did get the 
union dues the minister speaks about. 

But we can't have it both ways and we've 
got to specialize in this country. We've 
got to look in certain directions where we 
can go and invest our money soundly where 
we will get all of the benefits. Ford doesn't 
give us that. It gives us short-term jobs. 
That's what 21 reports from the select com- 
mittee said. We can continue to go down 
that road and forever we'll continue to have 
the same type of problems; or we can make 
a change, we can start to specialize and 
become very selective in what we produce. 

Obviously, we haven't learned in the past 
50 years what always happens with foreign 
investments. For those of us in northern 
Ontario it continues to be doom and gloom. 
The minister says no, it's all bright. His 
own four children have had to leave the 
area because they couldn't find work. They 
couldn't find work in northern Ontario. If 
they don't want to be miners or cut trees 
they are out. They leave town. They go 
to Alberta. Is that where they have gone? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: They got married and 
their husbands carried them off. 

Mr. Martel: Their husbands couldn't find 
jobs. Their husbands probably came to 
northern Ontario in the first place and 
couldn't stay there because there's nothing 
beyond extraction. There's nothing for 
women, and the minister has no plans, un- 
fortunately. 

The Toronto-centred region sums it all up. 
Do you recall that? The Toronto-centred 
region created a great fanfare in the House 
here. They called a meeting down at the 
Ontario Science Centre. John Robarts was 
there and all the cabinet ministers were 
there. They unfolded what was called the 
Toronto-centred region plan. I recall one 
sentence on page four. It sunk in here. It 



MAY 28, 1979 



2267 



said: "The Toronto-centred region plan: 
Northern Ontario will continue to be the 
source of raw material for the megalopolis 
between Chicago, Toronto and New York." 
That's what it was in 1969. That's what it 
was according to Darcy McKeough in the 
last provincial election. That's what it con- 
tinues to be today. Under this government 
that's what it will continue to be for north- 
ern Ontario. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: We've been through 
this on many occasions. 

Mr. Martel: Nothing changes. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Yes, a lot of things 
have changed in northern Ontario, which the 
member very conveniently forgets or ignores. 
He doesn't want to mention the things that 
are happening up there. As I mentioned 
before, when I first came here I heard 
exactly that kind of a speech when I was a 
back-bencher. 

Mr. Martel: Where are your children? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: In Canada., 

Mr. Martel: Where? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Enjoying life. 

Mr. Martel: Why did they have to leave 
northern Ontario? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Because they got 
married and got carted away by their hus- 
bands, if you want to know the truth. If 
their husbands are from Alberta what can 
I do? They are living on a farm raising 
cattle. 

Mr. Martel: They couldn't find a job in 
northern Ontario. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: They come back on a 
pretty regular basis. 

Mr. Martel: That's all they can do. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: They are out there 
enjoying the good things that the province 
of Alberta has to oflFer, not in the oil fields 
but in the cattle-raising business. The mem- 
ber for Sudbury East lives in a never-never 
land really. He's got blinkers on. He just 
won't face up to the realities of society and 
of the world the way it operates. 

Mr. Martel: In Sudbury, 3,500 people are 
laid off. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: He'd like to box himself 
into a little wee area of Ontario and Canada 
and say we're going to do this and that and 
to hell with the rest of the world. That's the 
attitude, providing we do what we want 
to do. It doesn't work that way. 

Mr. Young: The rest of the world operates 
the way Mr. Martel said it does. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: It doesn't work that way. 
There are no restrictions. There are no laws 



to stop anybody from getting into the manu- 
facture of mining equipment in this province, 
in this country. There is nothing to stop any- 
body. We have got entrepreneurs in this 
country who will do everything, and will 
build everything from a shovel to a loco- 
motive to an articulated bus. The entre- 
preneurs are there. Now there is something 
wrong. 

Mr. Martel: There isn't a diesel motor 
produced in Canada. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Well they are manufac- 
tured—they are assembled here. 

Mr. Martel: There is not a diesel motor 
produced) in Canada. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Well maybe not a motor 
sp>ecifically; but there may be something 
wrong if there isn't, the economics are not 
there to justify it. There must be someitbing 
wrong because I have great faith in the free 
enterprise system, to the extent that if there 
is a dollar to be exploited, they will manu- 
facture something here and exploit that buck 
for the benefit of otir people. I'm sure tihey 
will, but there is an exchange to which to 
relate. 

Mr. Martel: Why have we got a deficit of 
$1.6 billion in mining equipment? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: That deficit will be 
changed. 

Mr. Martel: When? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: It started on May 22. 
There vdll be a tumiaround. If we are around 
here four of five years from now I will bring 
to the honourable member's attention the 
fact things have changed. The item to which 
you referred, tariffs, may well be changed 
also, but the free enterprise spirit is alive 
and well and booming. It brought us as a 
nation 112 years of good solid tyi>e of devel- 
opment and a standard of Uving that's second! 
to none in the world. It's there. 
Mr. Martel: It's about eighth. 
Hon. Mr. Bemier: Ah no; the socialists say 
eighth but they always like to say that. They 
like to compare us with those lower ones- 
Mr. Wildman: The Senate of Canada says 
eighth. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: —but I am satisfied we 
are up in the twos and threes. I certainly will 
rest my faith in the free enterprise system. 

Mr. Young: You close your eyes to the facts. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: When it can be proven 
economically sound and of course profitable— 
and there's nothing wrong with the word 
"profit" as far as I am concerned; if there is 
a profit to be made in the manufacture of 
the product then we will see some develop- 



2268 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



ment in that line. As I said earlier, we don't 
have an immediate and magic answer for the 
single-resounce communities. I don't think 
any of you people over there have any 
answers. If you do, come forward with them. 

Mr. Martel: I did. I moved one a few 
years ago and you let it go. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I know, the "tomorrow" 
fund; that hairy-scary plan, the "tomorrow" 
fund. Nobody has accepted it. 

Mr. Martel: Peter Lougheed has a Heritage 
Fund worth $4 bilHon. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: If we had the wealth the 
province of Alberta has I am sure- 
Mr. Martel: We had it; we just blew it. 
Hon. Mr. Bemier: It is all our wealth. It 
is the province of Ontario's wealth that's out 
there in that Heritage Fund, $4.3 billion- 
Mr. Young: We had it for 30 or 50 years 
and you did nothing with it. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: —for which the province 
of Ontario has paid. 

Mr. Martel: AyatoUah Lougheed. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I appreciate constructive 
criticism, and certainly if the honourable 
members have something positive we can 
look at we would be glad to review it. 

Mr. Martel: What's wrong with a fund 
from the taxes on the resource sector and 
putting it away? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I am not here to debate 
the "tomorrow" fund; I just think it's a funny 
money plan. 

Mr. Martel: A funny money plan? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Yes, funny money; some- 
think like the Social Credit would come out 
with. 

Mr. Martel: What's the difference between 
a Socred and a Tory? 

Mr. Bolan: They have more money out 
there. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Oh there is a little dif- 
ference, a little financial difference there. It's 
a kind of a funny money thing. 

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, the northern 
communities, the single-resource communi- 
ties are there. Sure some of them are going 
through some readjustment periods. I will 
grant thalt, but I will say to you now, and I 
will say it again, that there wiU always be 
an Atikokan; there will always be a Gerald- 
ton and Kirkland Lake. There wiU be the 
Red Lakes; and there wiU be the Pickle 
Lakes. Certainly this government will be there 
to listen to any constructive ideas that may 
come forward from all sides of the House 
that can answer this very serious problem. 



It applies not only in the province of On- 
tario. There are problems in the province of 
Quebec. You go to Saskatchewan and they 
have their problems in northern Saskatche- 
wan too, and they haven't come up with any 
answers. They have no answers in Saskatche- 
wan. I have been there on many occasions. 
[4:45] 

Go to the province of Alberta. What are 
they paying a gallon in northern Alberta? A 
dollar and twenty cents a gallon in northern 
Alberta; the same price we are paying in 
norithern Ontario. They have problems there 
too that they have not resolved, so don't say 
all the problems are in northern Ontario. 

Mr. Bolan: I would just like to make a few 
remarks with respect to the one-industry com- 
munities which we have in northern Ontario 
and w'hat I feel is the obligation of the state, 
the obligation of government, towards these 
one-industry communities. These, of course, 
are born out of the fact that in northern On- 
tario we do have the natural resources out 
of which these communities are created. Let's 
take, for example, Elliot Lake. What you 
have there is a massive investment, not only 
on the part of free enterprise, but also on 
the part of the state, on the part of society, 
in the form of literally— in Elliot Lake— mil- 
lions of tax doUars which are put into the 
services. 

I speak of the sewage treatment plants, I 
speak of the sidewalks, I speak of the high- 
ways, I speak of the schools, I speak of the 
municipal buildings— all of those things which 
grow up into making a community, and to 
me there is a responsibility on the part of 
the state to protect that investment, because 
really you do have an investment in these 
communities, and that investment is in the 
form of hard dollars and cents which come 
from the taxpayer and have gone in to put 
in the services. 

Unless you have some kind of plan, looking 
25 or 30 years down the line, or whatever 
the life expectancy is of that particular com- 
munity, then I think thalt you really are not 
doing service to your investment and that 
you are not protecting your investment. As 
the state grows, as the province develops, 
there is an obligation on the government to 
see to it that when there comes a time for 
relocation of an industry, or when there 
comes a Itime for the creation of a new in- 
dustry in the province, or if an investor or 
a manufacturer comes in and says: "We have 
a plan here which is goiug to require a cer- 
tain size of community, a certain number of 
people, which can do it as required," then 
I think there is an obligation on the part of 



MAY 28, 1979 



2269 



the province to see to it tlhat these are direct- 
ed towards these one-industry communities. 

As I say, if you are going to spend millions 
of dollars in these areas without having some 
kind of ongoing contingency plan to come 
to these communities and to make room for 
the infusion of labour, for the infusion of 
other capital, then you really are not hedging 
your bet, and really your bet is people. 

Whether you know this or not, Mr. Minis- 
ter, there has been a continual drain of our 
young people from northern Ontario, and I 
don't blame them, because there is not much 
going for them in northern Ontario. You cite 
your own family as an example. My two 
oldest ones are no longer in northern Ontario; 
there is nothing there for them. As the mem- 
ber for Sudbury East says, unless you are 
a miner, or you cut trees, or you are a 
professional, there really is not that mudi 
to attract or to keep a young person in 
northern Ontario, and once we have lost our 
youth we have lost the battle. 

While I am on that, I might also say of 
the quotation made by the member for Sud- 
bury East about northern Ontario being the 
supplier of the area from Chicago, that is 
what is called the hinterland theory. That is 
a well-esxKDused theory which I think has 
probably been practised better in Ontario 
than in any other region. It is a theory which 
is accepted by many governments. The theory 
is that the area up here, the hinterland, is 
the resource pool from which everything is 
drawn to feed the large growth areas at the 
bottom. 

I remember speaking about this to an econ- 
omist last year, a chap from Sudbury. I said, 
"Surely there is something which can be done 
to get away horn this hinterland theory. 
Certainly there is something which can be 
done by governments to try to do something 
for these areas which are more or less desig- 
nated as hinterland." In his opinion the horse 
was out of the bam. There was nothing 
which could be done unless steps were taken 
immediately. Even then we are looking at 15 
or 20 years down the line. 

It is very discouraging. I am sure the 
minister must find this discouraging himself. 
I have said this before, I am going to say 
it again— I think everybody in the House hias 
said it at one time or another over the past 
two years. It is very discouraging to hear a 
minister of the crown, a former Treasurer, 
say for all intents and purposes he was not 
interested in the growth and development of 
secondary industry in northern Ontario. Even 
the minister must find that very disturbing. 
I know I find it very disturbing because it 



seems to be a reaffirmation of the hinterland 
theory. 

If that is going to be the policy and that 
is going to be followed, then on these very 
expensive projects, these expensive communi- 
ties into which we have put millions of 
dollars, we simply have to accept the ghost- 
town theory, which to me is a natural flow 
from the hinterland theory. That is really 
the type of thing that has been going on, as 
the minister knows himself, in this province. 

I do not think anybody purposely sits 
down and designs a ghost town. I think that 
some place down the line they expect a 
miracle will happen. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Show me a ghost town 
in northern Ontario. 

Mr. Bolan: Cobalt. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: It's not a ghost town. 
Come on! 

Mr. Bolan: Yes, Cobalt is. I come from 
Cobalt and I can tell the minister right 
now— 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Tell the people of 
Cobalt that. 

Mr. Bolan: They know it too. I can tell 
the minister right now that one can see what 
happened there and what happened in many 
of the other mining communities in northern 
Ontario. 

What concerns me more than anything 
else, even today, is the attitude which the 
minister seems to be taking towards the one- 
industry towns. The minister thinks Confer- 
ence 2001 is the answer to everything. I cer- 
tainly haven't seen anything positive or any- 
thing really constructive come from that. I 
really think it is incumbent upon our govern- 
ment to see to it that proper measiures are 
taken to induce other industries to open in 
these one-industry towns. 

I am not going to be repetitive and say 
everything which the member for Sudbury 
East said about the mining industry or about 
mining equipment but it is an example of 
what can be done if the need is identified. 
He mentioned a company in North Bay, 
Jarvis Clark, as a typical example of two 
young men getting together and saying, "We 
feel there is a need for a particular kind of 
mining equipment." As the member knows, 
this really revolutionized extraction in mines 
—the scoop tram and the jumbos and other 
equipment which flowed from that. 

The fact remains that was a good example 
of free enterprise identifying a market. 
They did it, incidentally, without one cent 
of government money. They have gone 
through some expansionary programs now 
which have required funding from the De- 



2270 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



partment of Regional Economic Expansion, 
but the initial program was strictly on their 
own. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Because the investment 
climate was there. 

Mr. Bolan: Yes. But with the world market 
being what it is today, in areas such as 
mining equipment, logging equipment and 
pulp and paper equipment, there is no reason 
why we can't get on the bandwagon. There 
is no reason we can't start doing those things 
today that are going to give us some bene- 
fits, not three or five years from now, but 10 
or 15 years from now. That's how we are 
going to protect our one-industry towns. We 
have to give them something other than what 
they have now; otherwise, we are going to 
see their decline. 

Going back to what I said earlier, we are 
also going to see a decline in the population. 
The population in northern Ontario has been 
going down. The population of North Bay is 
down something like 2,000 over the past 
while. I was reading the ministry's directory 
of organized and unorganized communities 
in northern Ontario. It shows the population 
of North Bay at about 47,000, whereas the 
signs on the approaches to the city still have 
the old census figure of 50,000. That is a 
worrisome thing, because that area is not a 
one-industry town. If there is any area in 
northern Ontario that is diversified, it is 
North Bay. I am sure the minister is aware 
of that. When we look at all the various in- 
dustries there, it is really quite a tribute in 
that sense to northern Ontario. It is an ex- 
ample of what can be done. But, in spite of 
this, we still have this frightening prospect 
of a dwindling population. 

I am not saying there are any magical 
solutions to this problem. I have to agree 
with the minister when he says that it is a 
very difficult problem, without any quick 
cure. But what a government should do is to 
take not just a short-term approach, but a 
long-term approach. In that way, while there 
still is health in many of these communities, 
we can start looking at other areas and at 
other industries which would blend in with 
whatever a particular community is develop- 
ing. I would hope that 20 or 30 years from 
now we would be able to say that the popu- 
lation was going up; there was more stability. 
Isn't that what it really is all about: trying 
to bring into northern Ontario a more equi- 
table system? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Chairman, I ap- 
preciate the member's comments. I know his 
concern for single-resource communities is 
sincere. It is one that we all share, and I 
think we are all trying to find solutions. 



I can't help but think of the government's 
desire to do certain things for certain com- 
munities in northern Ontario. We stand up 
in this Legislature on many occasions and 
say we want a broader economic base for 
many of these communities; we want more 
job opportunities in more of these commun- 
ities; the north needs this type of recognition 
and all kinds of opportunities. 

But what happens when the government 
does do something? For instance, the Hydro 
plant at Atikokan is a typical example; that 
is a $500-million development, and the oppo- 
sition came from the community. The city 
of Thunder Bay opposed it, much to my sur- 
prise and shock. I almost fell oflF my chair 
when I heard that the council of Thunder 
Bay had opposed the development of that 
Hydro plant wiiich would provide 250 to 300 
jobs on an ongoing basis. 

In Red Lake, a single-industry community, 
we had the Reed Paper proposal for a $400- 
million pulp and paper development in the 
Ear Falls-Red Lake area that those 6,000 
people had been waiting for for 20 years; they 
had been promised it for 20 years. The renew- 
able resources are there. We had a proposal 
for the government to look at. It was just a 
proposal, just a memorandum of understand- 
ing, that the government would look at. What 
did the socialists do? 

[5:00] 

Mr. Wildman: There was a question about 
whether or not they were renewable. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: They didn't say let's 
have a look at it. That's all the government 
wanted to do, to see if it would support an 
industry of that size. The Liberal Party wasn't 
that far behind the socialists, believe me. 
They were waffling because there were some 
political marks to make. The government had 
the courage to move ahead and work out a 
memorandum of understanding to look at 
19,000 square miles in the hope that there 
were sufficient renewable resources. If there 
weren't there would be a paring back on that 
proposal, that was the clear understanding. 

All the environmental concerns would be 
looked after. All the economic concerns would 
be on the table to look at; everybody would 
have an opportunity. But the political pres- 
sure that came from this Legislature against 
that proposal, as you all recall, was horren- 
dous. 

Minaki is a typical example. There are 200 
or 300 people there living off one industry, 
tourism. Minaki Lodge is a fantastic develop- 
ment. The original development was pro- 
ceeded with by the CNR back in 1926. It 
was going on for years. It was something of a 



MAY 28, 1979 



2271 



landmark in northwestern Ontario. The gov- 
ernment became involved, I suppose you 
might say through the back door, not through 
the front door, because we had an NODC loan 
that we had to foreclose on. Rather than lose 
that and see the lodge go down the drain 
and lose the economic impetus that would be 
gained from the further development and 
expansion of that lodge, the government 
stepped in. The reaction we got from mem- 
bers of this Legislature was that it's a white 
elephant. They were not worried about the 
250 jobs it will have on a year-round basis. 

Mr. Wildman: Have you got an agreement 
yet? 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They said it's wrong for 
northern Ontario. Now they sit there and tell 
me we should have a diversified economy. 

Mr. Wildman: You haven't got an agree- 
ment yet. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have a diversified 
economy, and we want more industry. My 
God, the government is trying. We're coming 
forward with proposals. I would love you to 
get on the bandwagon and say let's get on 
with the job; let's support this proposal. It 
would create jobs; it would use the resources 
of northern Ontario for the benefit of north- 
erners. But we didn't get that reaction. 

Do you remember Maple Mountain? Do 
you remember how the member for Timis- 
kaming (Mr. Havrot) pleaded with this Legis- 
lature to get on with the Maple Mountain 
and how we got laughed out because it was 
a pie in the sky? He talked about an Ontario 
Place in the north. You shot down that one. 
Do you remember King Mountain? 

Mr. Wildman: I was going to ask you about 
that one. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: King Mountain was an- 
other one. I hope you're not against King 
Mountain. 

Mr. Wildman: I've never been there. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Great, I love to hear 
that, that's the kind of enthusiasm I love. It's 
needed up there. I think with those kinds of 
words we can get on with the job of doing 
things for northern Ontario. 

I remember Old Fort William; how the 
Globe and Mail took after us about Old Fort 
William and how the public accounts com- 
mittee reviewed every invoice— which is right; 
I'm not saying it's wrong, I think they should. 
All those government things should be looked 
at very carefully. But consider the hoops we 
have to go through, instead of having mem- 
bers opposite jumping on the bandwagon to 
say this is a good thing for northern Ontario 
as it will provide jobs and it will use the 
resources we have. I don't think we can go 



out tomorrow and get the Ford Motor Com- 
pany to establish up in Red Lake, much as 
I'd like to. But there are other things we can 
do up there by using the natural resources 
that are there. That's what we're proposing 
to dk). 

When we come forward with these sugges- 
tions, don't pooh-pooh the idea. 

Mr. Wildman: What about fabricating 
those resources? 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Don't look for political 
marks up north. Get on the bandwagon and 
say this is a positive thing. There are jobs up 
there and there are people up there. Tell 
them, don't tell me down here and play to 
the southern Ontario media. Go up there and 
tell them and see what they say. 

You know what happened at Minaki. You 
know what happened to the Reed Paper pro- 
posal. The reaction up there was totally dif- 
ferent from what it was down here. Things 
are different there. 

I plead with the members from northern 
Ontario, when we do come forward with 
positive suggestions that will improve the 
economic life and improve the economic base 
of these communities to join with us. Join 
with us and say that this is something that 
makes sense. Let's get on with the job of 
improving northern Ontario; together we can 
do it. 

iMr. Wildman: I want to respond to a 
couple of things the minister has just said. 
First, it seems to me that he misses the point 
that was being made by my colleague from 
Sudbury East that as long as we just— and I 
underline the word "just"— depend on the 
extraction and exportation of omr natural re- 
sources, we're also exporting jobs. Once those 
resources, if they are non-renewable, run out 
or if they are renewable resources which we 
don't take care to renew at an adequate rate, 
once they run out, then there are no more 
jobs. 

The minister and his colleague, the Minis- 
ter of Education, asked if there were any 
ghost towns in northern Ontario. I can give 
you some examples. 

Two years ago I was invited to go to 
Goudreau. I don't know whether the minis- 
ter has ever heard of Goudreau. He probably 
hasn't because it's a ghost town. 

Goudreau is about 13 miles north of 
Hawk Junction on the AGR line in my rid- 
ing. There are six people living in Goudreau 
now and they are the AGR section gang. 
But Goudreau, in 1910, had 3,000 people. 

The reason I was invited to go there was 
because there are a number of abandoned 
iron ore pits, old mining operations, that are 



2272 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



now filled up with water. They appeared 
to be leaching out into the Hawk river 
system and were poisoning the fish. I was 
asked to go in by the head of the section 
gang, a Mr. Smedts, who lives there and has 
lived there for 20 some years. I went in. 

The only way you can get into Goudreau 
is by train from Hawk. One goes up one 
way one day and back the next. I went in 
and stayed overnight at the Smedts' place. 
There is an old hotel there too — ^well, it's 
burned down now but there used to be a 
hotel there — and there are about four or five 
houses and a station. That's it. 

When we went to go to look at the pits 
we got into Mr. Smedts' old truck; a very 
large four-wheel-drive truck. He has a great 
big bumper on the front of it. The purpose 
of the bumper, apparently, is so that he can 
drive through the bush without having to 
avoid the trees, but we took oflF and we 
drove down what was apparently, at one 
time, a street. It was covered with small 
trees — we knocked down a number of them, 
I'm afraid. We drove through what had been 
a town. There were foundations all over the 
place. There had been 3,000 people there 
prior to the First World War. 

You ask me where there are ghost towns? 
Goudreau is an example of what happens 
when a resource runs out and when there is 
no forward planning as to what is going to 
be done to ensure that those people have a 
viable choice, other than just leaving, and 
leaving everything behind, which is what 
happened there. 

Today that doesn't happen in the same 
way because we have a number of social 
programs that have replaced that. We have 
things like unemployment insurance. We 
have welfare, and so on, that help tide 
people over. In those days, if you didn't 
leave immediately you starved unless you 
could get by by hunting. It may not be as 
blatant today, but the same kinds of things 
happen. 

I think, too, of other communities in my 
riding. I think of Blind River, for instance. 
Blind River is by no means a ghost town. 
It's a vibrant community. It's dependent on 
tourism and government ministries. It has a 
Ifirse number of people now commuting to 
Elliot Lake to work in the mines there. But 
at one time it was one of the largest lumber 
operations in North America. What hap- 
pened? That resource, the white pine, was 
decimated. It was shipped out — mostly to 
the Boston area at that time. Then, of course, 
they had the Mississagi fire. 

Nothing remains of that lumber operation. 
We have a small veneer operation going 



there, but its future is doubtful, according 
to the Ministry of Natural Resources, in 
terms of more than seven years. That again 
is the kind of example we can point to. 

As a matter of fact, there are the Dubreuil 
brothers— I know the minister knows the 
Dubreuils. They are a very hardworking 
group of men who have a lumber operation 
and sawmill operation in northern Ontario — 
chips and so on. But their history is an ex- 
ample of the vagabond approach that in the 
past has been the history of northern Ontario, 
moving from one area to another as needed, 
and taking with them a large number of 
people who have stayed with them for a long 
period of time. Now they've established a 
community which is called Dubreuilville, 
which is a more permanent community and 
which they are trying to make permanent, 
and which is developing into a municipality. 
In the past, that hasn't been the case. They 
used to be at Magpie. They went to Magpie 
first and then they shifted. 

You could even look at a community in 
my riding which might be considered the 
most prosperous of all the communities in 
my riding— I'm not including Sault Ste. 
Marie, of course, because that isn't in my 
riding, although a large number of people 
in the environs of that community live in my 
riding and commute back and forth. But if 
you look at my riding itself the most pros- 
perous community is probably Wawa. It's 
the largest community. In terms of southern 
Ontario, it's not a very big community. It 
only has 5,000 people. 

When you look at Wawa, it's really just 
a resource-based community. The main 
reason, the real reason, for Wawa is the iron 
ore. Algoma Ore first started out and had 
pits at Goudreau at one time, which they 
developed, and then they had the Helen 
Mine. What happens to Wawa when the 
iron ore is finished? They used to have a 
gold mine up there. It's gone. It's not in 
operation. 

They also have tourism in Wawa, a large 
amount of tourism, largely because of the 
Trans-Canada Highway, but it's a resource- 
based industry as well. The minister knows 
the problems we are facing in northeastern 
Ontario right now with the lower numbers of 
fish being caught and the problems of game 
management as more and more areas become 
more readily accessible. What happens to 
the jobs in tourism, unless we are able to 
adapt tourism in some way so that it isn't 
so dependent on wild life in northern 
Ontario? 

Even a very vibrant and prosperous com- 
munity like Wawa is really facing hard 



MAY 28, 1979 



2273 



times in the future unless there are further 
developments. When you look at it in terms 
of tourism and when you look at the problem 
of acid rain, unless the federal government 
and the American government as w^ell as the 
provincial government get involved in solving 
that problem, we are going to have even 
more serious problems for tourism in north- 
ern Ontario. 

Mr. Young: If the gas prices go up, you'll 
have still more problems. 

Mr. Wildman: Yes, gas prices have already 
lowered the number of tourists in our area 
in the past. 

Look at another community in my riding, 
which I have mentioned twice already in 
these estimates and I haven't had an answer 
from the minister yet about it, and that is 
Missanabie. Missanabie is a very old com- 
munity. It was established first by the Hud- 
son's Bay Company. It was a trading area. 
Then the Canadian Pacific Railway went 
through there and establis-hed a community 
there, and it was a railway community. Then 
they got into lumbering, and now there is 
tourism as well. 

If that lumber mill becomes a less viable 
operation, is sold or is burned down, what 
happens to it? I would be interested to know 
w'hat this ministry is doing about Missanabie, 
and I have asked that before during these 
estimates. Are the new owners, Lafreniere 
from Chapleau, going to re-establish a mill 
in Missanabie, or are they going to build in 
Chapleau, as a Ministry of Industry and 
Tourism official indicated to one of my as- 
sistants last week? If that happens, what 
happens to Missanabie? Or, is it imp>ortant 
to this government for that community and 
those residents to continue there? 

The minister really misses the whole point. 
The point is that we are not opposed to 
resource development in northern Ontario, 
but we want coupled with it the processing 
of those resources and the fabrication, be- 
cause that is where the jobs are. There are 
more jobs in manufacturing than there are 
in resource extraction. The Americans under- 
stand it, the Europeans understand it and ihc 
Japanese understand it. The Japanese have 
one of the best economies in the world and 
they don't have any resources, because they 
import our resources and they import re- 
sources from the third world. 

Our whole approach to development m 
northern Ontario and Ontario in general, 
and Canada for that matter, has tended to 
be the development that is characteristic of 
the third world. We need capital and we 
want a higher standard of living, so what do 
we do? We take the short route to it by ex- 



porting our resources and exi>orting along 
with that all the manufacturing jobs that 
result from them. 
[5:15] 

Some other countries haven't taken that 
route, and they have paid the price, I'll 
admit. They have a lower standard of living. 
Look at Mexico; Mexico now faces the pos- 
sibility of improving its situation and im- 
proving its standard of living because of the 
oil finds, but it's been a long time in devel- 
oping, rjl admit that, but I don't see any 
will on the part of this government or of the 
government in Ottawa, of whatever political 
stripe, to try to turn that situation around. 

The minister asked me if there were any 
ghost towns in northern Ontario. There are. 
There are other communities which are poli- 
tical ghost towns. Nowadays we don't have 
ghost towns where everything becomes 
vacant. What happens is, we end up with 
people on welfare; we end up with people 
surviving from hand to mouth on seasonal 
jobs. Frankly, I think that's another kind of 
ghost town. What we need is viable industry. 

The minister mentions things like Minaki. 
Minaki is just another resource industry, as 
the minister himself says. He indicates that 
the opposition was responsible in some way 
for the problems of Minaki. The fact is that 
the government got involved because the 
entrepreneur who was involved was in 
trouble. The government itself is having 
trouble right now— and has had in unloading 
Minaki. To say that when we criticize the 
government for investing the amount of 
money they did there, in terms of asking 
what viable future there is for Minaki, 
ignores that. 

As a matter of fact, I have a letter from 
the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. 
Grossman), dated March 21. He starts oflF by 
saying: "The negotiations between the board 
of directors of Minaki Lodge and the poten- 
tial private-sector operators are confidential." 
But he goes on to say: "The board informs 
me they are presently negotiating three 
agreements with the private sector. They in- 
clude technical services, management and 
reservation referrals. 

"No doubt you have read of Fred Boyer's 
appointment as president and chief operating 
executive of the company. I think that's an 
indication of how close we beheve we are 
to final agreements." For more than a year 
the minister has been giving me that kind 
of reply when I try to find' out whait's hap- 
pening with Minaki. 

Is the government close to any kind of an 
agreement? Is it a viable operation? If the 



2274 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



minister can show it's a viable operation, he 
won't run into the kind of criticism he has 
been complaining about. But to pour money 
in without any assurance that there's going 
to be a return on that, even in terms of on- 
going jobs, is not an adequaite response from 
this government. 

I wonder also, when the minister mentions 
Maple Mountain and King Mountain in the 
same breath, whether he thinks they are 
equivalent operations and proposals. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: They sound the same. 

Mr. Wildman: Yes, they sound the same. 
That's another interesting point, about King 
Mountain. Last fall we had a statement say- 
ing that we would have some kind of indi- 
cation in the near future about King Moun- 
tain. Then in January, I asked what was 
happening and was told I'd hear in the near 
future. We haven't had any announcement 
yet. Is that a viable operation? Is it going 
to go ahead? How does it relalte to the other 
proposals in the area, by the private sector? 
Just north of that, there's a major proposal 
by a consortium involving both Canadian and 
foreign investors. How is it related? What is 
the role of the ministry in that? 

We've got to get serious here. It's nice 
to trade rhetoric back and forth, but we 
have major problems if we remain solely de- 
pendent upon resource industries, whether 
it be extraction through mining or lumbering 
or, for that matter, just tourism. They are 
all resource-based and eventually, unless we 
change the patterns we are facing now, we're 
not going to have the kinds of resources we 
have in northern Ontario. Unless we replace 
them with something, we're going to have 
major problems. That's what we're saying 
over here, and I'm looking for some kind of 
positive response from ithe government. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Chairman, I don't 
know if I can add anything further to what 
I have already said. Sure, it's great to have 
secondary manufacturing. The Missanabies, 
the Savant Lakes, the Minakis; I think it is 
fair to say will never see secondary manu- 
facturing. Hopefully, the Sudburys, Timmins', 
Sault Ste. Maries, North Bays, Thunder Bays, 
Kenoras and the Drydens will. I think that's 
where any secondary manufacturing is going 
to be. We certainly can't stand in our places, 
any one of us, and say we are going to save 
all the Missanabies or the Hudsons or the 
Savanit Lakes or the Armstrongs— these types 
of places. 

My old home town of Hudson is a typical 
example. I suppose the community shouldn't 
even exist. It was established back in 1929 
during the gold rush days. That's when my 



father came to Red Lake. He moved down 
to Hudson and went into business for himself. 
On a part-time basis he sdt up a general 
store. The other part-time job was a steel 
helmet diver. That's what brought him to that 
country, working on the Hydro dams doing 
underwater work. He also worked in Mont- 
real harbour on ocean-going vessels. Later he 
went into business on his own and contracted 
out. They were bringing out the iron ore 
concentrates by tractor train and by scow, 
and the gold bricks by aeroplane at that time. 
Invariably there were losses that would occur 
and he would go down and salvage them. 

He did that for years. He did it very well. 
In fact we never felt the depression back 
in Hudson. I remember the depression and 
we never felt it, because my father was doing 
so well during the gold rush days. 

Hudson was built up as a transportation 
community because we were the last jump- 
ing-off place on steel to the Red Lake area. 
The freight would come into Hudson on the 
railway to be transported north to Pickle 
Lake and to Red Lake by tractor train, by 
barge and by aircraft. In fact in 1939, you 
will be interested to know there was more 
air freight moved out of Hudson going to 
those two mining communities than there was 
from the international airport in Chicago. 

But the road came. They built a road into 
Red Lake, they built a road into Pickle Lake. 
That should have been the end of Hudson. 
Eight hundred people should have packed 
their bags and moved on. They had been 
there something like 20 or 25 years then. 
The transportation industry had gone, the 
docks were all left but all the barges were 
moved out. The office spaces on the water- 
front were moved. The big cranes were pulled 
down. It was a sad sight. 

But the point I am trying to make is the 
guts and the courage of the local people 
were still there. Four of them banded to- 
gether and said: "Hudson is not going to die. 
We are going to make sure of that." The four 
of them pooled their resources, came down 
here and met with the government and said: 
"Look, we are prepared to go into the saw- 
mill business. We need some timber re- 
sources." My father was one of those men 
who had pooled resources as a consortium. 
The government gave them a timber limit 
and they went back to Hudson and estab- 
lished a mill. The mill is still operating today 
and there are 350 people working there on a 
year-round basis and they want to expand. 

It's that kind of initiative, that kind of 
entrepreneurship, that we have in northern 
Ontario. Sure it's using those resources. I 



MAY 28, 1979 



2275 



grant it, but it's still providing those jobs and 
those jobs are good for another 30 or 40 
years from the resources we have in that area. 
Hudson should have been gone. It should 
have been wiped off the map right after the 
Second World War. 

I don't have the answers for every com- 
munity in northern Ontario. We are not going 
to relax our efforts one bit in trying to en- 
courage development and secondary manu- 
facturing in that area. The development and 
employment project, the one the Treasurer 
(Mr. F. S. Miller) is chairing along with the 
Minister of Industry and Tourism, is directed 
specifically at encouraging new manufacturing 
and job opportunities across this province. 
I am confident we wiU see some action in 
northern Ontario with regard to that. 

>But there are limitations, we know, because 
of our great distances and our small popula- 
tions. Some 90 per cent of the land mass is 
north of the French River but only 10 per 
cent of the people, 900,000 people. What's 
the population of London, Ontario? It has got 
to be close to a million. The population of 
Kitchener and London is equivalent to the 
whole of northern Ontario. 

The odds are stacked against us as north- 
erners. It's true we have the resources, but 
we have a couple of problems with it. One 
of them is the lack of population and the 
other is the great distances. We have to 
accept that and meet that challenge, knowing 
those problems are before us. So while I wel- 
come the member's input, I certainly will not 
let it go to gather dust in the Hansard papers; 
I will read it and my staff will read it, because 
it does gives us food for thought. 

Mr. Wildman: In regard to what we have 
been discussing, can the minister indicate 
what is happening with the proposal by the 
chambers of commerce of northwestern On- 
tario? In this proposal, made to the provincial 
cabinet in December I believe, for the forma- 
tion of a study group for the development of 
an industrial strategy for that area, they were 
looking for $112,000 for a two-year program. 
I understand, in the words of Mr. Jobbitt, one 
of their spokesman who is quoted in the 
article I am reading here, that: 

"The north has been inundated with con- 
sultants being flown into our area from cen- 
tres other than northwestern Ontario, and 
while we recognize the expertise of consul- 
tants must be utilized from time to time, 
we feel that one must live in the environ- 
ment to understand its needs and potential 
and to properly appreciate it." 

1 understand that at that time the Premier 
(Mr. Davis) was unable to commit himself 



that the government would fund such a study. 
The Minister of Northern Affairs indicated he 
would look at it and discuss it with his 
cabinet colleagues, in the hope that something 
could come early in the spring. 

I understand that the chambers of com- 
merce were concerned not only with en- 
couraging new investment but retaining the 
existing businesses that are already in opera- 
tion there. I wonder if the minister could 
indicate what is happening with that. 

At one point I think he said he was going 
to give us some indication of what success 
he could point to in terms of the Manitoulin 
economic development committee. In relation 
to that, I would be interested in an update 
on what Dr. Lupton, of the ministry staff in 
Sudbury, has been able to come up with in 
terms of the North Shore Development Asso- 
ciation and any proposal by the ministry to 
assist the communities in those areas in trying 
to bring about an industrial strategy to pro- 
duce some kind of secondary industry and 
service industries for those areas. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Yes, I would be glad to 
rej>ort on the progress we are making with 
regard to input from northwestern Ontario. 

If I could just go back a few steps and 
relate to the members the issue we are dis- 
cussing. It refers to the establishment some 
time ago of the development councils, and I 
think there were eight or nine across north- 
em Ontario. It is fair to say the ones in 
northwestern and northeastern Ontario were 
the most active, the most aggressive and the 
most productive right across the province in 
providing information and in being a watch- 
dog, a group that would provide input to the 
planning process. But other areas of the prov- 
ince were not as efficient, as effective or as 
productive, so the Treasurer of the day felt 
very strongly that they had outlived their 
usefulness and he abandoned them com- 
pletely. 

In the period that followed the new Treas- 
urer, who had responsibility for plarming, 
established what we call the municipal ad- 
visory committees the MACs. We have one 
in the northeast and one in the northwest. 
He felt very strongly at that time, and I think 
it is fair to say that I shared his view, that if 
we are going to get a group involved in the 
strategic industrial planning for a specific 
region and getting some very valuable, con- 
structive and responsible input, it should 
come from the elected representatives of the 
area rather than from the various pressure 
groups, lobbyists if you will, which had a 
variety of interests. 



2276 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



[5:30] 

He felt a municipal politician, who had to 
go back to his electorate every two years, 
should interface with the politicians here at 
Queen's Park. I think the idea has some 
merit, there is no question. It still has merit. 
In my meetings with the municipal advisory 
committees there has been a rapport, a 
sharing of the ideas. They do not burden the 
government with wild-eyed plans and pro- 
posals, knowing full well they as politicians 
will have to share some of that responsibility. 
So it has some benefits in that regard. 

I think it is fair to say that both municipal 
advisory committees are working very effec- 
tively right now in the northeast and north- 
west. In the northeast we have already estab- 
lished the location of the executive director, 
who will be in Sault Ste. Marie adjacent to 
the office of the assistant deputy minister, 
Herb Aiken. I think the office space has been 
allocated and the furniture has been pur- 
chased. The advisory committee executive 
is now working on the selection of an execu- 
tive director. It will be in essence their 
executive director; he will be their man, 
working very closely with the Ministry of 
Northern Affairs because that is the interface 
as it was spelled out by the government. 

In the northwest we have a similar situa- 
tion taking place. The MAC approach has 
come a long way in the last three or four 
years. There was that parochial problem 
where Thunder Bay seemed to overshadow 
all the other little communities with regard 
to their input and attitudes, but that has 
changed. I think the whole MAC arrange- 
ment now is looking at the needs of the 
region, be it social or economic or trans- 
portation or whatever. They are looking at 
the overall region; which of course makes it 
much easier to deal with. So we have that 
in place and in step and moving ahead. They 
will have an office established in northwest- 
ern Ontario. 

What we see on the other hand is the 
remnants of the old Nordiwest Ontario De- 
velopment Council, which was headed up 
by that very able gentleman, the late Lackey 
Phillips. He had done a tremendous job but 
he reported principally to a mix of people, 
some in the municipal field, some in the 
chamber of commerce group. I don't think 
there were any labour people or native 
people involved; I don't think the unorgan- 
ized communities were involved. Principally 
it was the chambers of commerce — the 
Northwestern Ontario Associated Chambers 
of Commerce — and the municipal organ- 
izations. 



Since the establishment of MAC I think it 
is fair to say those other groups — the cham- 
bers of commerce, the labour unions, the 
native people and the unorganized communi- 
ties association — have felt outside the input 
process. They want to provide input, as most 
northerners do. They have come forward and 
asked, "Is there some way we can give some 
input, that we can give our expertise and 
our ideas?" They claim — and I am not here 
to argue or debate it — that municipal poli- 
ticians have certain biases with regard to 
their job, to their outlook; and maybe they 
do not have the expertise that a member of 
the chamber of commerce or a member of 
a labour union would have, or a member of 
the native community or a member of the 
imorganized communities would have; that 
expertise or that input or that attitude would 
not be there unless it came through from 
the other direction. 

They have asked us, and they have asked 
the Premier, if there is some way they could 
work with the MAC, outside of the MAC in 
some vehicle through which they could be 
formally recognized. We do not have an 
answer. I went to the northern Ontario 
municipal association and laid it right on 
their doorstep. I said: "We have to hear 
those people. There are groups out there that 
want an input. They have some valuable 
contribution to make, in a number of differ- 
ent fields. I feel obligated to find a way to 
get that input and to get that co-operation." 
I have asked them to sit down and share 
with me some ideas. Just recently I have 
written to the municipal advisory committee 
suggesting the same thing: that they look at 
a number of different ways in which we 
can get the input from these particular 
groups. Is it a subcommittee of the MAC? 
Is it part of the MAC organization? I don't 
think we should have three or four different 
groups feeding input to the government. I 
think it is much easier, if one is doing 
planning and this type of work, to have it 
come through one specific body. 

The issue is before them now. We will be 
having some discussions with them. I have 
asked MAC to get back to me by late June 
with some suggestions of how they feel we 
could implement the planning and get the 
support and input from these various groups. 
That is well in hand and moving ahead. I 
don't know what will come out of those dis- 
cussions and those ideas, but I can assure 
you that we are anxiously trying to find 
a solution. 

You asked about the Manitoulin Economic 
Development Association. You will recall we 
did assist in setting up an association that 



MAY 28, 1979 



2277 



consisted of nine municipalities. We contri- 
buted something like $40,000 a year and the 
local municipalities would match this from 
municipal taxation. To date they have hired 
a manager and a secretary. They have 
opened an ofiBce and a brochure on the 
association has been developed and is now 
being distributed. 

From the work of the association, seven 
new enterprises have been established in the 
area, creating 11 new jobs. Discussions are 
presently under way with four new prospects 
with an employment potential of eight addi- 
tional jobs. A very successful trade fair was 
held in Little Current on May 11 of this 
year. It received wide acclaim. So they are 
in place. 

This is another example of how we could 
help with a self-help agency. Dr. Lupton of 
our staff was very much involved with in 
working closely with this group, to get their 
input, their ideas, and then of course to give 
them that seed money to get off and running. 

There are no better salesmen than the 
local people themselves, if they are given the 
support, resources and expertise they need 
to go to the outside world and create the 
attitude and atmosphere they require to im- 
prove their own small industries and, of 
course, to create jobs. I am particularly 
pleased with their success to date. 

Item 2 agreed to. 

Vote 701 agreed to. 

On vote 702, project development and 
community relations program; item 1; project 
development and implementation: 

Mr. Bolan: I'm glad to see that we have 
finally moved off vote 701. I am not being 
critical, however; this merely emphasizes the 
problems which exist in northern Ontario 
when we have to spend close to eight hours 
just dealing with that one particular item. As 
I say, I am not being critical. In fact, per- 
haps we should spend more hours on these 
estimates. 

I notice that when we went through the 
last estimates, 11% hours was allocated, and 
we are now up to 13 hours. It's just like the 
budget, onwards and upwards. We're shoot- 
ing for 15 hours the next time. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Revise my budget up- 
wards? 

Mr. Bolan: I would hope that the budget 
will increase in the same percentage as does 
the number of hours required to do the 
estimates. 

I just have one matter to raise on this item. 
It has to do with the programs of the gov- 
ernment which the people of northern On- 



tario are to be made aware of. I'm talking 
about the services of the Northern Affairs 
officers. 

The function of the Northern Affairs 
officers as set out in the estimates is to make 
residents of northern Ontario aware of the 
programs, services and facilities available to 
them from the government. There is at least 
one area here which causes me concern. It 
is one of the programs introduced by the 
government which I feel has been of tre- 
mendous benefit to the people of Ontario, 
particularly those in northern Ontario, and 
that is the OHRP program, the Ontario 
Home Renewal Plan. There is only one thing 
wrong with it, there is not enough money 
for it. If there ever was a program designed 
to increase and improve the housing stock, 
this certainly is the one. 

When you look at all the spinoff effects 
this particular program has, first of all it im- 
proves the home, which means that the 
assessed value of the home goes up, which 
means that the taxes will go up correspond- 
ingly, and rightfully they should. It means 
the small businessman gets into the act, be- 
cause he's one of the contractors who will 
go out to replace the roof or put in a new 
septic tank or drill a new well. The benefits 
are just astounding. 

My concern is just what role does the 
northern affairs officer play in dealing with 
the OHRP programs. I do know that if 
somebody comes to him an application is 
made out in his office. I'm talking about the 
groups in unorganized townships. The ap- 
plication is made in his office and he'll make 
a search of the title at the registry office or 
hell have that done, which is all fine indeed. 
But specifically, what attempts does the 
northern affairs officer make to go out and 
to inform the public in unorganized town- 
ships and communities of the program? 

I know in my area we had one northern 
affairs officer, who no longer is with us, Mr. 
Cazabon, an excellent officer. He did an 
awful lot of OHRP work. He would go right 
out and knock on their doors and say: "This 
program is available. Are you interested?" 
He really went out and sold the plan. How- 
ever, I understand this is not the case with 
all of them, and I can understand that too. 
They have other things to do. 

I'd like to know if you have any specific 
instructions to your northern affairs officers 
as to what they are to do to iriform the public 
of the OHRP program, other than, of course, 
to have the pamphlets made available in the 
office. 

In my particular area, what I did is I sent 
a letter to all of the citizens who live in 



2278 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



the unorganized townships to inform them 
of the program and to inform them where 
they could get more information, either 
through my constituency office or the North- 
ern AflFairs office in North Bay or in Sturgeon 
Falls. 

If you don't have any particular instruc- 
tions to your northern affairs officers, I would 
ask that you consider that, because the bene- 
fits of it are just fantastic. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I certainly appreciate 
the member's observations on the fine job 
our northern affairs officers are doing, not 
only with the OHRP program but all the 
government programs they deal with. 

The OHRP program, as you are well 
aware, is administered by the Ministry of 
Housing, and through the excellent co- 
operation we get from the ministry, having 
our northern affairs officers be the front line 
people in the field has worked out excep- 
tionally well — there's just no question — right 
across the north. I don't think there's a 
member in northern Ontario that hasn't writ- 
ten me about the OHRP program and the 
excellent results he or she has received from 
this program and from our northern affairs 
officers in handling this particular program. 

They're given a blanket instruction to 
promote government programs. As you 
know, many of them have their own little 
columns in the newspapers, many of them 
have spot radio shows, some even go as far 
as to have television programs where they 
talk about Ontario government programs and 
let the general public know how to go about 
it, how they can help them in a number of 
different ways. They've also been instructed, 
where possible, to speak to various groups, 
large or small, in the development of those 
programs. 

Also, I think it's fair to say in the rural 
areas — and I followed it in my own area, it 
was very, very effective — it is word of 
mouth. We had a couple of programs in my 
community; and believe me when Ron 
Willis, the northern affairs officer, came in to 
meet with the individuals — and they were 
senior citizens — to discuss with them a new 
roof, an addition to their house for a bath- 
room — the very basic needs, something that 
was really needed; and then to roll out the 
repayment program, which was very mini- 
mal: that went through the town like wild- 
fire, so Ron Willis was pretty busy for a 
long period. 

[5:45] 

I guess one of the weaknesses of the pro- 
gram is the amount of money we're allowed. 
I would like to see it increased. I think you 



would too. I am constantly pressing my col- 
league, the Minister of Housing, for his 
efforts in improving that overall program. 
It has such benefits, as you correcdy pointed 
out, to the areas of northern Ontario that 
have many small, frame houses. That $1,000 
or $2,000 can do a tremendous amount of 
improvements to them. We see it every day 
and I just hope it continues because we're 
going to be in there promoting it and doing 
everything we can to improve the quality 
of hfe. 

Mr. Wildman: To supplement that, I cer- 
tainly add my feehngs about the OHRP 
program to those of my colleague. I think 
this is one program that has the support of 
just about every member of the House. It's 
gained a great deal of praise. 

I'd be interested in finding out if you 
have any specific training seminars or work- 
shops worked up for the northern affairs 
officers themselves with other ministries, like 
the Ministry of Housing in relation to OHRP 
or, say, the Ministry of the Environment in 
relation to their program on the rural, priv- 
ately-owned septic tanks and wells, that 
kind of thing. 

There have been a lot of very good 
things done in my area, and in others in the 
unorganized communities under OHRP. 
There have been a few administrative prob- 
lems, however, and I can understand that 
occurring with one person basically doing a 
lot of different projects in different areas. 
I wonder if you have any ongoing training 
programs for northern affairs officers on those 
two programs. Also, I would be interested 
in relation to the one thing you said about 
the radio shows and TV shows, if you could 
give me some ideas of who could go on those 
shows. 

I've had a couple of occasions where, just 
by coincidence I'm sure, I have madb one or 
two public statements that might be a little 
critical of government policy where, within 
a few days or a week or so, the northern 
affairs show in Sault Ste. Marie has dealt 
with the very same topic and has not always 
agreed with me about what I've said. I just 
wonder if there is any opportunity for rebut- 
tal to some of the things that are said on the 
Northern Affairs programs, though, in terms 
of advertising government programs I think 
they're very worthwhile shows. 

Those are my only two questions on this 
vote. Could you give me some idea of what 
ongoing upgrading and training you're doing 
for your officers in those various programs 
and also if you could give me some com^ 
ments about how the shows operate? 



MAY 28, 1979 



2279 



Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I should just relate 
to the member the selectivity that we go 
through in picking a northern affairs officer 
first. I think it's fair to say that we have a 
long list of people waiting to become northern 
affairs officers. Over the years they have built 
themselves up into a pretty respectable 
group. Sure, the salary is good. They are very 
broad and general in their approach. They're 
dealing with human issues, doing things for 
people, and we select those people for their 
knowledge of the way government operates. 
They may have been former civil servants 
who have a backgroimd of a ministry or a 
number of ministries, so they come to us 
with some knowledge of how the system 
operates. 

We build on that with regular training 
seminars, because it is important to keep up 
with the various changes that take place with 
regard to the programs that they promote 
and they administer. I'm told here that we 
have them on a very regular basis. In fact 
the next one is on the 30th of this month; 
a two-day one in the northeast. What they do 
is get other government ministries to send up 
their people to talk to our northern affairs 
officers. Even the Ombudsman met with the 
northern affairs officers to explain his role. 
In fact, he was so impressed he thought our 
northern affairs officers were mini-ombuds- 
men. 

We just don't relay the programs ourselves. 
The ministries that are responsible for those 
programs actually go up and meet with the 
northern affairs officers and exchange views 
with them. It's an ongoing thing with all the 
ministries we deal with, Labour, Environment, 
Natural Resources, not so much Natural Re- 
sources because they have so many people in 
the field, but Housing, Intergovernmental 
Affairs and so on. 

Over a few years those people have become 
very versatile and very broad in their ap- 
proach, very broad in their thinking, and of 
course in the administration of provincial 
programs. We have an excellent group, some- 
thing like 29, right across northern Ontario, 
serving the public exceptionally well; not 
only those 29 but the satellite people working 
for them. I want to take this opportunity to 
publicly thank those people who are working 
in the smaller communities on a satellite basis 
with no pay, no compensation. It's just a 
referral system. People know the northern 
affairs officer is coming to a certain town or 
a certain community and they leave their 
names with the satellite officer who, in turn, 
passes it over to the northern affairs officer 
who makes that call. It's a very effective net- 
work of service and one tlhat cannot go un- 



recognized, because they make a tremendous 
contribution to their fellow man. I want to 
thank them publicly for it. 

The member asked one question at the end. 
What was it? I didn't get it? 

Mr. Wildman: I asked about the television 
programs. If the minister would like a further 
explanation, I will give him one example. 
It's not a major thing I'm raising here, just 
a matter of interest. 

At the time the provincial parks camp fees 
were increased, I indicated I didn't agree 
with that and I pointed out, when the report 
came out a year later, that the percentage of 
people visiting the camps was down. I think 
it was about 11 per cent last year, and in 
our area it was higher, about 15 to 18 per 
cent. Not long after I made that statement 
and pointed to that figure, which the Minister 
of Natural Resources had supplied me with, 
there was a program on in the Sault, a Minis- 
try of Northern Affairs show, and they had a 
long discussion about whether the increase in 
the provincial parks fees had affected the 
numbers of visitors to the parks in our area. 
They didn't agree with my position. I have 
nothing against them for not agreeing with 
what I said, but I am just interested to know 
whether I could have gone on the show and 
made my position clear to the interviewer 
as well. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I suppose our northern 
affairs officers are very well informed and we 
always like to keep the record straight, so to 
speak. No, I can't answer that specffic ques- 
tion, but I guess we have made it an unwrit- 
ten rule, there is nothing written, to keep 
away from politicians on those shows. I don't 
think you have seen the minister on those 
shows. 

Mr. Wildman: Oh, no. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I don't think it's the 
place for politicians. We have a forum. 
There's nothing better than the Ontario Legis- 
lature as a place to spout off. Of course we 
?lso have the route of news releases if we 
want to issue them ourselves. I'm sure the 
radio stations carry our news releases, as do 
TV shows and so on. I think we should leave 
to the northern affairs officers the respon- 
sibility of outlining to the public just what 
those programs are and how they can help 
everybody in general, no matter if they are 
NDP, Liberal or Conservative. They'll help 
them all. There is no discrimination, no bias. 

Item 1 agreed to. 

On item 2, project development and imple- 
mentaltion: 

Mr. Bolan: Just one small point on this: I 
suppose it's as good a place as any to bring 



2280 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



this up. The minister says one of the func- 
tions of his ministry is to work in concert 
with municipalities and other ministries in 
developing plans to improve northern com- 
munity conditions and to respond to those in 
need. I just have one question on this and 
it has to do with the educational channel, TV 
Ontario. 

In northern Ontario the only way you can 
gelt this channel is if you have cable tele- 
vision. I think we all know the benefits of 
TV Ontario. 

I am wondering if this ministry has any in- 
put with respect to this. I am wondering if 
the minister is prepared to undertake to the 
House ithat he will liaise with the other min- 
istries which may be responsible for this. I 
presume Culture and Recreation would be the 
line ministry on this. 

In any event, many of those in isolated 
communities can get the regular CBC channel 
or whichever one is in the area, but TV 
Ontario has to be one of the better things 
which have come out for a long time. 

There are some good government programs. 
There's OHRP there's TV Ontario and there 
are others as well. We don't mind pointing 
these out when the time comes to point them 
out. But in terms of educating many of the 
people— and I mean adults here; the children 
get their education in school. I'm talking 
abouit the adult residents of northern Ontario 
in some of our isolated communities who 
could certainly stand the benefits of this very 
excellent program. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Well Mr. Chairman, the 
honourable member has hit on a very sensi- 
tive issue for me personally. It's one that I 
have been— 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It's one that's shared. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I'm talking about the 
overall lack of improved television across 
northern Ontario, not ETV. But no, as was 
spelled out in the throne speech, you'll recall 
that the Ministry of Northern AflFairs was 
given certain responsibilities. We are sup- 
posed to accelerate better television cover- 
age across northern Ontario. Our goal is to 
have at least three off-air channels, these be- 
ing CBC, CTV and ETV. I think that's our 
minimum goal. Now cable will follow that. 

Mr. Wildman: And French. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: And French, oh yes, 
there's no question about that. French is mov- 
ing into CBC in many areas right now. So 
we have that as a goal, in fact I am getting 
a little annoyed and frustrated with the lack 
of a decision by the CRTC. 



Mr. Wildman: It had to do with an 
election. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: That further infuriates 
me, really. The member for Rainy River— 
and he was a member on June 4— stood up 
and said, "The CRTC had made their deci- 
sion, but we can't tell you today, we're going 
to tell you two weeks from now," which 
would be three or four days before the elec- 
tion. It never did happen. We still don't 
know who the selected carrier is. 

I can tell you we're going to crank up our 
efforts to get a decision and to get on with 
the job, because tiiere are new developments 
occurring in northern Ontario. There are de- 
velopments with the satellite dishes. They are 
coming on rapidly. In the town of Dryden 
just about two weeks ago, after about three 
montlis experimenting, the local cable oper- 
ator tied into the satellite and brought in 
Atlanta, Georgia, clear as a bell. The colour 
was exceptional, the voice w^as perfect and 
there they were, the people were watching 
baseball games coming in live from Atlanta, 
Georgia, through the satellite. 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That's educational? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Yes. 

Mr. Bolan: How about ETV? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: If we can get ETV and 

CTV through that route I think that's the 
way we should go, because the costs have 
just been reduced tremendously by this sat- 
tellite if they can be worked in. 

Mr. Wildman: Cable's just not viable for 
most of the small communities. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It is now with the dish 
antenna in place. In fact the fellow told 
me that he figured out it would cost him 
about 10 cents per customer if he was 
allowed to use the satellite dishes. Now 
he's totally illegal, and he recognizes that; 
that's why he brought it in during election 
time, so they wouldn't shut it down. But 
nevertheless it's in place, it's working and 
we're going to accelerate our efforts as a 
ministry to get on with the job, because 
northern Ontario needs it and deserves it. 

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Shall item 2 carry? 
Does nobody wish to speak further on the 
item? 

On motion by Hon. Mr. Bernier, the com- 
mittee of supply reported a certain resolu- 
tion. 

The House adjourned at 6 p.m. 



MAY 28, 1979 



2281 



APPENDIX 

(See page 2255) 



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 
ON NOTICE PAPER 



. LEGAL SERVICES CONTRACTS 

123. Mr. Ziemba: What are the names 
and business address of lawyers that performed 
contract work for the government last year; 
and how much was each paid? [Tabled April 
5, 1979. Interim Answer April 19, 1979. Ap- 
proximate date iiiformation available May 18, 
1979.] 

See sessional paper 74. 

SCHOOL BOARD STATISTICS 

181. Mr. Bounsall: Will the ministry 
table for each school board in Ontario for 
1977, 1978, 1979, using interim and estimate 
figures where necessary: 1. The average 
daily enrolment; 2. per pupil grant ceiling; 
3. per pupil expenditures; 4. total expendi- 
ture; 5. total local taxation; 6. total provin- 
cial assistance; 7. rate of grant on recognized 
ordinary expenditures; 8. provincial contri- 



bution as a percentage of the total local 
school board expenditures; 9. rate of grant 
for French language instruction; 10. decline 
or increase in number of students from prev- 
ious year; 11. decline or increase in number 
of full-time equivalent teachers from previ- 
ous year; 12. number of self-contained 
special education classes; 13. number of full- 
time equivalent teachers of special education 
classes; 14. number of heritage language 
classes; 15. number of students studying 
heritage languages; 16. number of pupils 
whose first language is neither English nor 
French; 17. number of self-contained classes 
for pupils whose first language is neither 
English nor French; 18. number of full-time 
equivalent teachers of classes for pupils 
whose first language is neither English nor 
French? [Tabled May 15, 1979.] 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We require ad- 
ditional time to prepare our response to the 
above question. The answer will be ready 
for tabling on or about Thursday, June 7, 
1979. 



ERPIATUM 



No. Page Column Line Should read: 

53 2177 1 49 Bill 33, An Act to amend the Agricultural 



2282 LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



CONTENTS 

Monday, May 28, 1979 

Points of privilege re newspaper reports: Mr. Norton, Mr. Grossman 2239 

Tourism, statement by Mr. Grossman 2240 

Nuclear plant safety, statement by Mr. Auld 2241 

Elevation of Archbishop Carter, statement by Mr. Wells 2241 

Elliot Lake uranium mines, statement by Mr. Parrott 2242 

Nuclear plant safety, questions of Mr. Auld: Mr. S. Smith, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. 

MacDonald 2242 

PCBs in milk, questions of Mr. Timbrell: Mr. S. Smith, Mr. Gaunt 2243 

Food processing, questions of Mr. Grossman: Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Swart, Mr. Laughren 2244 

Solar energy, questions of Mr. Auld: Mr. Cassidy, Mr. S. Smith 2245 

Nuclear plant safety, questions of Mr. Auld: Mr. Nixon, Mr. S. Smith 2246 

Apprenticeship programs, questions of Miss Stephenson: Mr. S. Smith, Mr. Bounsall .... 2247 

Employer-sponsored training, questions of Miss Stephenson: Mr. Cooke, Mr. S. Smith, 

Mr. Bounsall 2247 

Child support payments, questions of Mr. Norton: Mr. Blundy, Mr. McClellan 2248 

Point of privilege re TTC negotiations: Mr. Davis 2249 

Health service charges, questions of Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Breaugh, Mr. Conway 2250 

Child support payments, questions of Mr. McMurtry: Mrs. Campbell 2250 

Fruit land preservation, question of Mr. Bennett: Mr. Swart 2251 

Milton school delay, question of Miss Stephenson: Mr. J. Reed 2251 

Chemicals in school yard, questions of Mr. Parrott: Mr. M. Davidson 2251 

Northlander service, questions of Mr. Bemier: Mr. G. Taylor, Mr. Wildman 2252 

Public housing, questions of Mr. Bennett: Mr. B. Newman, Mr. Cooke 2252 

Rape case, questions of Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Mackenzie 2253 

Qualifications of director of education, question of Miss Stephenson: Mr. Huston 2253 

Conflict of interest, question of Miss Stephenson: Mr. Bounsall 2254 

Petition re nuclear plant safety, Mr. Breithaupt 2254 

District of Parry Sound Local Government Act, Mr. Wells, first reading 2254 

Public Utilities Amendment Act, Mr. Wells, first reading 2254 

Children's Rights Act, Mr. McClellan, first reading 2255 

Tabling answers to questions 123 and 181 on Notice Paper, Mr. Grossman 2255 



MAY 28, 1979 2283 

Estimates, Ministry of Northern Affairs, continued, Mr. Bernier 2255 

Adjournment 2280 

Appendix, answers to questions on Notice Paper 2281 

Legal services contracts, question of Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Ziemba 2281 

School board statistics, questions of Miss Stephenson: Mr. Bounsall 2281 

Erratum 2281 



2284 LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



f.rr?-iti,,> v-jji-i'? K 



SPEAKERS IN THIS ISSUE 



Auld, Hon. J. A. C; Minister of Energy; Minister of Natural Resources (Leeds PC) 

Bennett, Hon. C; Minister of Housing (Ottawa South PC) 

Bemier, Hon. L.; Minister of Northern Affairs (KenoraiPC) 

Blundy, P. (Samia L) 

Bolan, M. ( Nipissing L ) 

Bounsall, E. J. (Windsor-Sandwich NDP) 

Bradley, J. (St. Catharines L) 

Breaugh, M. (Oshawa NDP) 

Breithaupt, J. R. (Kitchener L) 

Campbell, M. (St. George L) 

Cassidy, M. (Ottawa Centre NDP) 

Conway, S. (Renfrew North L) 

Cooke, D. (Windsor-Riverside NDP) 

Davidson, M. ( Cambridge NDP ) 

Davis, Hon. W. G.; Premier (Brampton PC) 

Edighoffer, H.; Chairman (Perth L) 

Gaunt, M. (Huron-Bruce) L) 

Grossman, Hon. L.; Minister of Industry and Tourism (St. Andrew-St. Patrick PC) 

Laughren, F. (Nickel Belt NDP) 

MacBeth, J. P.; Deputy Chairman (HumberPC) 

MacDonald, D. C. (Yoi^k South NDP) 

Mackenzie, R. (Hamilton East NDP) 

Makarchuk, M. (Brantford NDP) 

Mancini, R. (Essex* South L) 

Martel, E. W. (Sudbury East NDP) 

McClellan, R. (BeUwoods NDP) 

McMurtry, Hon. R.; Attorney General; Solicitor General (Eglinton PC) 

Newman, B. ( Windsor- WalkerviUe L) 

Norton, Hon. K.; Minister of Community and Social Services (Kingston and the Islands PC) 

Parrott, Hon. H. C; Minister of the Environment (Oxford PC) 

Peterson, D. (London Centre L) 

Reed, J. ( Halton-BurHngton L ) 

Renwick, J. A. (Riverdale NDP) 

Ruston, R. F. (Essex North L) 

Smith, S.; Leader of the Opposition (Hamilton West L) 

Stephenson, Hon. B.; Minister of Education (York Mills PC) 

Stokes, Hon. J. E.; Speaker (Lake Nipigon NDP) 

Swart, M. ( Welland-Thorold NDP) 

Taylor, G. (Simooe Centre PC) 

Timbrell, Hon. D. R.; Minister of Health (Don Mills PC) 

Warner, D. ( Scafborough-Ellesmere NDP ) 

Wells, Hon. T. L.; Minister of Intergovernmental AfiFairs (Scarborough North PC) 

Wildman, B. ( Algoma NDP) 

Worton, H. (Wellington South L) 

Young, F. (Yorkview NDP) 




Ontario ■^"- ^^ 



Legislature of Ontario 
Debates 

Official Report (Hansard) 



Third Session, 31st Parliament 

Tuesday, May 29, 1979 
Afternoon Sitting 

Speaker: Honourable Joiin E. Stokes 
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, QC 



CONTENTS 



Contents of the proceedings reported in this issue of Hansard appears at the back, 
together with an alphabetical list of the speakers taking part. 

Reference to a cumulative index of previous issues can be obtained by caDing the 
Hansard Reporting Service indexing staff at (416) 965-2159. 



Hansard subscription price is $15 per session from: Sessional Subscription Service, 
Printing Services Branch, Ministry of Govenmient Services, Ninth Floor, Ferguson Blodc, 
Parliament Buildings, Toronto M7A 1N3; phone (416) 965-2238. 

Published by the Legislature of the Province of Ontario. 

Editor of Debates: Peter Brannan. c^^^io 



2287 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



The House met at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY 

CIVIL COURT PILOT PROJECT 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I will 
be introducing for first reading this afternoon 
the Provincial Court, (Civil Division) Proj- 
ect Act, 1979. The purpose of this bill is to 
establish in the municipality of Metropolitan 
Toronto a pilot project court where methods 
of reducing expense and delay in the adjudi- 
cation of civil action can be implemented 
on an experimental basis and evaluated. 

The pilot project involves the establish- 
ment in Toronto of a civil division of the 
provincial court for a period of three years. 
This project is proposed for Metropolitan 
Toronto because that municipality already 
has most of the resources necessary to 
handle the case load that will come into the 
civil division. It is my hope that if the proj- 
ect proves successful it can be extended to 
other parts of the province. 

The newly created civil division will 
assume all the jurisdiction of the small claims 
courts in Metropolitan Toronto. In addi- 
tion, the civil division will have jurisdiction 
over civil claims up to $300. The bill 
provides that rules may be made to govern 
procedure in the project court. Although 
the details of the rules have yet to be 
worked out, they will be based on a form of 
simplified procedure where innovative 
measures may be tried and assessed. Par- 
ticularly in the pre-trial and pleading 
stages of a civil action, there is room for 
new approaches and a more streamlined 
structure for civil litigation. 

An individual will be free to hire a lawyer 
to represent him in the civil divsion, but 
steps will be taken to keep legal fees down 
and to reduce the overall cost of litigation. 

The judges presiding in the civil divi- 
sion will be those small claims court judges 
appointed by the province who are currently 
sitting in Metropolitan Toronto. The exist- 
ing court offices and court staff will be uti- 
lized in the project. Some increase in re- 
sources will be necessary but, hopefully, the 
increase will not be great. 



Tuesday, May 29, 1979 

The bill establishes an advisory com- 
mittee to advise and make recommendations 
on the establishment and operation of the 
pilot project court and on its practice and 
procedure. My ministry is committed to 
making the courts of Ontario more accessible 
to the average citizen and to providing less 
expensive and less prolonged methods of 
settling disputes. A number of initiatives 
in this direction have already been made, 
such as the unified family court in Hamilton- 
Wentworth. These efforts must be continued 
and expanded. 

I am confident that the provincial court 
(civil division) pilot project will be a signifi- 
cant step in achieving the goals I have out- 
lined and that the experience and insight 
ganed by the project will prove to be invalu- 
able. 

OPP TRAINING CENTRE 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would like to take 
this opportunity to announce to the House 
plans for a new training facility for the 
Ontario Provincial Police which, fortunately, 
also allows the government to further 
rationalize the rehabilitation programs of 
the Ministry of Correctional Services. 

This announcement is of some interest 
and importance to the citizens of Brampton 
who have so compassionately assisted the 
staff of the Ministry of Correctional Services 
adult training centre in their progressive 
work with non-violent offenders in that 
community. As many will be aware, the 
need for this facility has altered as a result 
of the ministry's development of creative 
community programs and the tendency of 
the courts to consider methods other than 
jail for dealing with the non-violent offender. 

The Minister of Correctional Services 
will deal more specifically with some of 
these changes in the rehabilitation frame- 
work and the plans for the staff in more 
detail later. The result, however, is that 
the adult training centre is now redundant 
as far as the programs of the ministry are 
concerned and the centre will be vacated 
on August 31, 1979. At the same time, the 
Ontario Provincial Police have been seri- 
ously searching for quarters more suited to 
the wide-ranging programs of the Ontario 



2288 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Provincial Police Training and Development 
Centre presently located in inadequate 
quarters on Sherboume Street in the city of 
Toronto. 

The officials of the OPP have examined 
the 97-acre Brampton site and have concluded 
that with some modifications it will satisfy 
the force's need for expanded training facili- 
ties. It is anticipated that the centre will 
provide accommodation for 150 students and 
an increased administration stafiF. It is, there- 
fore, a pleasure for me to announce that the 
Ontario Provincial Police Training and De- 
velopment Centre will commence moving 
from its location on Sherbourne Street on 
September 1, 1979. 

Brampton is an excellent location for the 
new training centre. 

Mrs. Campbell: You are so right. 

An hon. member: Tell it to the Premier. 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It offers easy access 
to the force's general headquarters and to 
the students who will be attending from 
across the province in that it is close to 
Toronto International Airport and highway 
401. The site will also facilitate all anticipated 
expansion needs. 

Mr. Sweeney: How can you smile when 
you are talking about so important a matter? 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The new training 
centre will provide year-round courses to 
members of the force and will include all 
academic subjects related to police science as 
well as motorcycle and physical training in- 
struction. Supervisory and senior manage- 
ment courses will also form an important part 
of the curriculum and an indoor firearms 
range and swimming pool will be constructed 
to instruct force members in the use of police 
weapons and scuba diving. 

An hon. member: Don't tell Tom Cossitt 
about the swimming pool. 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The OPP training 
centre programs are not intended to supplant 
the curriculum offered by the Ontario Police 
College in Aylmer, Ontario. Rather, they are 
supplemental and aimed specifically at the 
needs of members of the Ontario Provincial 
Police. 

Although I am certainly pleased to an- 
nounce the Ontario Provincial Police will 
locate in Brampton, I am somewhat saddened 
at the need to close Brampton Adult Train- 
ing Centre. This correctional facility opened 
in 1947 and was the forerunner of many 
advanced, community-oriented programs for 
dealing witii the young and non- violent 
offender. 



CLOSURE OF BRAMPTON 
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY 

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the Minis- 
try of Correctional Services will co-operate 
with the Ontario Provincial Police to ensure 
the smooth transition of Brampton Adtilt 
Training Centre from its present use as a 
minimum security correctional facility to a 
training and development centre for OPP 
staff. 

Brampton ATC will close its doors as a 
correctional facility on August 31, 1979. 
Transfers of inmates to the centre have been 
terminated. The limited number of irmiates 
who will not have completed their sentences 
at the centre by the end of August will be 
transferred to other correctional institutions 
or community facilities. 

All permanent civil servants currently em- 
ployed at Brampton ATC will be offered 
alternative employment in the Ontario public 
service. In the majority of cases it will be 
possible to place these staff members in 
vacant positions in other institutions located 
within reasonable commuting distance of their 
present homes. In this regard, five other major 
correctional facilities are situated within a 
25-mile radius of Brampton. Commencing 
today, representatives of the personnel branch 
of this ministry will be on site to interview 
all staff members regarding future employ- 
ment possibilities and to assist them during 
the transition period. 

The phasing out of Brampton ATC is an- 
other indication of the progress which has 
been made by the Ministry of Correctional 
Services in the development of community- 
based programs as an alternative to incarcera- 
tion for well-motivated, non- violent offenders. 
When the centre first opened its doors in 
February 1947 it represented an entirely new 
concept in the province for dealing with 
young offenders between the ages of 16 and 
24. It was the first correctional facility in the 
province in which offenders were not under 
constant supervision. There were no bars on 
windows and no security fences surrounding 
the grounds. This situation encouraged in- 
mates to develop a sense of trust in them- 
selves which, in turn, contributed to their 
positive response to the training and treat- 
ment program. 

The open setting philosophy of the centre 
gained wide acceptance in the community 
to the point where many young inmates be- 
gan working at gainful employment in the 
community or attending classes in the com- 
munity educational facilities. It is certainly 
worth noting that the temporary absence pro- 
gram which operates in Ontario with a 98 
per cent success rate had its beginning in 



MAY 29 1979 



2289 



Brampton. The first four inmates to be per- 
mitted to attend classes in a community 
school during the day while completing their 
sentences at a correctional centre were resi- 
dents of the Brampton ATC. That was in 
1968. 

Ironically, it is this very success of the 
kind of community programming pioneered 
at the Brampton ATC which has provided 
the community alternatives that will now 
permit the phasing out of the Brampton 
setting as a correctional facility. This new 
emphasis has included extensive use of com- 
munity supervision, temporary absences to 
work or receive academic and vocational 
training, and the establishment of 34 com- 
munity resource centres of which all except 
two are operated by private agencies and 
individuals for this ministry. In addition, the 
courts are sentencing more people to perform 
community service, or, are recommending 
immediate temporary absences to allow 
offenders to retain their jobs in the com- 
munity. 

Thus, the needs of many of the individuals 
previously classified for Brampton ATC, are 
being met in the community by CRCs, the 
House of Concord which is operated by the 
Salvation Army, or by placing them on pa- 
role. Those offenders requiring training in a 
correctional setting can be accommodated at 
such facilities as the Maplehurst Adult Train- 
ing Centre, which has an excellent educa- 
tional training program. 

The success of the Brampton ATC pro- 
gram over its many years of operation can 
be attributed to two main ingredients: an 
outstanding and dedicated staff, and a com- 
munity whose citizens provided acceptance, 
understanding, and a willingness to become 
involved in the challenge of assisting of- 
fenders. I wish to express my personal ap- 
preciation and that of the ministry for the 
tremendous contribution made by staff of the 
Brampton ATC to the development of pio- 
neering correctional programs in this prov- 
ince. Certainly the correctional facilities to 
which these staff will now be reassigned will 
benefit immensely from the experience and 
knowledge these employees have to offer. 

On behalf of the Ministry of Correctional 
Services, I would also like to thank the cit- 
izens of Brampton for their valuable support 
and their immensely important contributions 
to the program at this adult training centre 
over the past 32 years. 

Mr. Kerrio: You guys would do anything 
to save that seat. 

Hon. Mr. Walker: I know they will con- 
tinue to participate in the programs at our 
two other Brampton facilities next door — ^the 



Vanier Centre for Women and the Ontario 
Correctional Institute— and they can be 
counted upon to extend the hand of wel- 
come, as well as their co-operation to the 
Ontario Provincial Police staff. 

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION 

Hon. Mr. Wells: Today I will be intro- 
ducing a bill which contains a number of 
amendments to the Municipal Act. Many of 
these amendments are the result of consulta- 
tion and requests from municipalities, while 
others are of a housekeeping nature, designed 
to improve or clarify certain sections of the 
present legislation. 

I would like to take this opportunity to 
outline briefly the amendments being intro- 
duced today for your consideration. Follow- 
ing the 1978 municipal elections, represent- 
atives of several municipalities indicated they 
would like to be able to administer the mu- 
nicipal oath of allegiance and declaration of 
ofiice in either French or English. 

This bill will authorize the minister to 
provide all forms required for the purpose 
of the Municipal Act in a bilingual version. 
These forms are currently provided in En- 
glish only. The choice of forms to be used 
will be left to the discretion of each munic- 
ipality. Use of the bilingual version will 
enable a municipality to administer the oath 
of allegiance and declaration of oflBce in 
either English or French. 

A number of the amendments will expand 
the authority of municipal councils. Councils 
will be able to lease or license the use of 
untravelled portions of highways in areas 
zoned for residential purposes. They will be 
authorized to allow municipal sewer inspec- 
tors to enter onto private, commercial and 
industrial property, but not a residence, 
without a search warrant for the purpose of 
examining industrial discharge into municipal 
sewers. 

[2:15] 

Councils will be authorized to extend the 
deadline for making the oath of allegiance 
and the declaration of office for reasons 
council considers to be valid. The current 
minimum and maximum fines for leaving a 
motor vehicle unattended will be repealed, 
and councils will be able to prescribe fines 
in amounts not exceeding $1,000. 

The existing reward provisions will be 
expanded to enable municipalities to pro- 
vide rewards for information leading to the 
location or return of missing persons or prop- 
erty, and the requirements for the approval 
of the Minister of Housing for municipal 



2290 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



roads of more than 30 metres in width will 
be deleted. 

Several changes will be made to the provi- 
sions dealing with financial matters. Coun- 
cils will be able to set their minimum tax 
bills at any level up to $10 or another amount 
prescribed by the minister. This will par- 
ticularly assist smaller municipalities where 
the incidence of tax bills for smaller amounts 
is highest. 

The requirement in section 224 that mu- 
nicipalities make public their financial state- 
ments will be extended to counties. Councils 
will be required to deal themselves with ap- 
plications for tax reductions because of sick- 
ness, extreme poverty or reassessment, rather 
than delegate this responsibility to the assess- 
ment review court. 

Loans provided to municipalities under 
the Main Street Revitalization Program and 
the Ontario Downtown Revitalization Pro- 
gram will be exempted from the requirement 
for obtaining the assent of the electors. The 
permissive upper limit for tax penalties will 
be increased from one per cent to one and 
one quarter per cent per month. Such a 
move should avoid financial hardship for 
municipalities, while encouraging taxpayers 
to pay their taxes on time. 

The bill will authorize a provincial court 
judge to issue an order to prohibit a person 
guilty of contravening a bylaw from con- 
tinuing or repeating such contravention. 

In line with a recent amendment to permit 
municipalities to invest in credit unions, as 
well as in trust companies and chartered 
banks, municipalities will be authorized to 
permit the payment of municipal taxes 
through credit unions and caisses populaires. 
At present, such arrangements can only be 
made with chartered banks, trust companies 
and the Province of Ontario Savings OflSces. 

Mr. Speaker: The member for Niagara 
Falls on a possible point of privilege. 

DIOXIN IN FISH 

Mr. Kerrio: Some weeks ago, I made 
reference to the fact there was enough 
dioxin in dumpsites in Niagara Falls, New 
York, to poison the population of North 
America. That statement was erroneous and 
I wish to correct it. 

The minister then referred to the amounts 
that are dangerous as a shot of vermouth 
in a 28 million ton martini. Now I would 
like to read into the record the correction: 

Dioxin is in the same megapoison category 
as botulism and shellfish toxin. With up to 
2,130 known pounds in dumpsites used in 
the 1960s by Hooker Chemical Company, 



there is enough within leaching range of 
Lake Ontario to wipe out the world. US 
authorities, however, are now actively work- 
ing to contain or, where possible, to remove 
them. 

Though parts per trilHon sounds harmless, 
dioxin in five parts per trillion is known 
to cause cancer in test rodents and such 
microscopic measiurements are destined to 
join nuclear rems in the lexicon of a pollution- 
conscious pubhc. 

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the En- 
vironment would like to add something 
further by way of correcting the record. 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I really don't think the 
member opposite had any disagreement with 
anything I was saying. The reference to 
various illustrations of parts per trillion was 
an illustration to bring to the attention of 
everyone the very, very small portions that 
can do harm. At no time did the member 
or myself disagree with the infinitesimally 
small parts of dioxin that can be harmful. 

Mr. Mancini: Changed your tune now, eh? 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I dont 
think the member's privilege was one of dis- 
agreement with myself as much as he wanted 
to correct the record and on that we agree. 

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY 

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
point of order or a point of privilege that I, 
as chairman of the select committee on 
Hydro affairs, want to raise with you and 
through you, with the House. A rather strange 
situation has developed. Normally it is 
handled by the House leaders but in this 
instance it has been frustrated by the House 
leaders. 

Last Thursday, you will recall, I brought in 
a report— no, it was during your absence 
so you will not recall. I brought in a report 
from the select committee, as a result of a 
resolution passed the previous day by a 
majority in the committee, requesting the 
House to endorse the proposal the Rolphton 
plant should not be put back in operation- 
it is now down for maintenance— until the 
committee had an opportunity to explore that 
great and growing concern with regard to 
nuclear safety. 

At the House leaders' meeting on Monday, 
when the acting House leader, in the absence 
of Honourable Mr. Welch, was there, the 
argument was made that since the business 
for this week had been decided and announc- 
ed last Thursday, there could be no change 
in that business— an argument, Mr. Speaker, 
I think you will regard as being not wholly 



MAY 29, 1979 



2291 



accurate, since we have changed business 
to conform with the needs or the require- 
ments of the government, or sometimes the 
opposition, many times. 

The situation is this station is going to 
come back into operation at the end of this 
month, which is the end of this week. There- 
fore, a debate on that motion from a majority 
of the committee is meaningful only if it 
takes place before the end of this week. It 
could be scheduled on Thursday, but the 
acting government House leader has blocked 
it. It seems to me, as the chairman of a 
committee having brought back a report from 
a majority of that committee, I have an 
obligation to draw to your attention and to 
the attention of the whole House that an 
opportunity to debate that whole matter has 
been frustrated by the position taken by the 
acting government House leader at Mondiay's 
meeting. 

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, many times 
business has been changed from what is a 
tentative scheduling of business for the com- 
ing week, when new circumstances arise. 
Thursday night of this week, when we may 
have time to go back to budget debate, I 
am told, after two or three relatively in- 
consequential bills, would be the appropriate 
time to debate this resolution. Otherwise, it 
becomes a meaningless debate. 

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, if I may 
attempt to be of some assistance to you as 
you consider this matter, you might recog- 
nize that members of our party on the select 
committee wished to have the Rolphton 
matter dealt with as follows: We felt the 
station should remain closed until the safety 
matters had been looked into by the select 
committee. We furthermore felt the logical 
thing to do was to take advantage of the 
fact it was down for maintenance and have 
the select committee immediately seize the 
matter of the Rolphton referral and bring in 
those witnesses pertinent to the matter so 
they could understand as quickly as possible 
whether or not the safe operation of that 
reactor should be re-undertaken. 

Interestingly enough, the votes of the other 
two parties on that committee rendered the 
following situation the case: They accepted 
that the Rolphton reactor should remain 
down imtil the matter was looked at, but 
then turned around and refused to look at it 
until the month of July. That to me is utterly 
nonsensical. The committee should have 
looked at it then. They should have taken the 
earliest opportunity to look at it. Why the 
members of the other two parties decided 
not to remains to this day a mystery to my- 
self. I would suggest that rather than take the 



time of the House to debate Rolphton, the 
committee should immediately sit down and 
look at that precise reference, which is what 
we wanted in the first place. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, just to 
put the sequence of events in perspective for 
the House, as the member for York South 
has pointed out, the committee did meet last 
Wednesday. After hearing a petition and some 
other information brought before the com- 
mittee by the member for Carleton East (Ms. 
Gigantes), and then after a very short dis^ 
cussion— an hour or an hour and a half— they 
decided to vote on the resolution before it. 

Subsequently, in the ordinary course, the 
House leaders met on Thursday at noon to 
conclude and agree upon, as is always the 
case, the order of business for the following 
week, which is this week. At that time, the 
matter was not only not agreed upon, but 
not even raised by any of the House leaders 
present; that is a full 24 hours after the com- 
mittee had passed the resolution. There was 
also no secret at that time about the intended 
reopening of the plant in question. 

Subsequent to that, at two o'clock last 
Thursday after the House business had been 
agreed upon for this week, my colleague, the 
Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld), rose in this 
House and set out the definitive government 
position upon the situation with regard to 
that plant which, I would remind the House, 
is a fairly complete statement. It indicates, 
as far as the ministry is concerned and, I 
believe, so far as the Atomic Energy Control 
Board is concerned, that there is no problem 
with the reopening of that plant. 

At six o'clock last Thursday, the govern- 
ment House leader rose, as he always does, 
to read out the agreed-upon order of business 
for this coming we^k. At diat time, almost a 
day and a half after the committee had met 
and dealt with the issue, the matter had still 
not been raised. 

What I indicated at the meeting yesterday 
was that there really was no managerial 
change in the circumstances from the time the 
resolution was dealt with by the committee 
last Wednesday until yesterday, which would 
bring the statement of the minister of last 
Thursday into any doubt whatsoever. It goes 
without saying that the committee is free to 
meet at any time to deal with the various 
matters it wants to deal with regarding this 
plant. At any time it wishes to do so, it is so 
authorized. 

The plant will continue to undergo ordi- 
nary maintenance— I emphasize this point— 
and reopen in the ordinary course in accord- 
ance with AECBs permission and the ap- 
proval of Ontario Hydro which operates 



2292 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



that plant. If, at any time, the committee 
wants to meet and pass its own judgement 
on whether the plant is a safe one, then so 
be it. 

Ms. Gigantes: I have a point of per- 
sonal privilege, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. Speaker: We could continue this all 
day. Is it in connection with the one raised 
by the member for York South? 

Ms. Gigantes: Yes, it is. 

Mr. Speaker: I will hear you. 

Ms. Gigantes: Last week in the press the 
leader of the Liberal Party was quoted as 
saying that the select committee on Ontario 
Hydro affairs had voted no— in other words, 
the NDP and the Conservatives had joined 
and voted against having immediate hear- 
ings. He has repeated that today in the 
House, and that is incorrect. There was no 
such motion. 

I put one motion after discussion, Mr. 
Speaker, I feel obliged to bring it to your 
attention, as it is very important. There was 
one motion after discussion. It was dis- 
cussed, and it was the motion which came 
out of the select committee. I call upon 
the leader of the Liberal Party to withdraw 
that incorrect statement. 

Mr. Speaker: Order. 

Interjections. 

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is obviously 
a difference of opinion or a difference of 
interpretation as to what transpired in the 
meeting. 

Mr. Mackenzie: It's a question of the 
truth. 

Interjections. 

Mr. Speaker: Order. The purpose of the 
member for York South in rising was to seek 
my intervention with regard to the ordering 
of the business of this House. I want to 
remind him and all other members that it 
is not the responsibility of the chair to 
order the business of this House or the com- 
mittees of the House, which are creatures 
of the House. The ordering of business is 
the responsibility of the government House 
leader in consultation with the other two 
House leaders. 

Following on the sequence of events as 
they unfolded, as related by the acting 
House leader, you wouldn't want the chair 
to be forcing its position on the ordering 
of the business of this House or its com- 
mittees. It must be resolved by the proper 
authorities. There is nothing I can do about 
it. 

Mr. Martel: But he was misleading. 



Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
point of order with regard to an inaccuracy 
in the statement of the acting government 
House leader. 

Mr. Speaker: In any event, I have heard 
the position of spokesmen for all three 
parties. I want members to appreciate that 
it is not the responsibility of the chair to 
order the business of this House. That must 
be done by other people who are well known 
to you. 

Mr. J. Reed: I have a point of privilege 
to correct the record, if I may, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. Speaker: I will hear it briefly. 

Mr. J. Reed: The acting government House 
leader suggested that the information con- 
cerning the Rolphton matter had been 
brought to the select committee by some- 
one other than myself. I should like it to 
go on the record that I, on behalf of my 
party, was responsible for bringing that in- 
formation to the select committee. 
[2:30] 

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, on a new 
point of order with regard to an inaccuracy 
in the statement of the acting government 
House leader. 

Mr. Speaker: An inaccuracy really doesn't 
offend the privileges of the member unless 
he or she is personally affected. If this is 
the case, I'll hear it. 

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, you have 
stated that if there's an inaccuracy and one 
wants it corrected, one should do it on a 
point of order immediately it's been said. 

I brought in a report at three o'clock on 
Tliursday afternoon last week. That indi- 
cated a desire on the part of the majority 
of the committee for a debate. The business 
of the House wasn't announced by the gov- 
ernment House leader until six o'clock. 

Our procedure is that reports from com- 
mittees are dealt with on the following 
Thursday evening. That is a standard pro- 
cedure we've been following for some time. 
Therefore, for the acting government House 
leader to say they hadn't been informed 
and that I didn't rise and raise the matter 
is a gross misrepresentation of the situation. 

Mr. Speaker: Obviously, the member is 
asking the chair to intervene or to rectify 
something that is beyond his power to do 
so. 

Mr. MacDonald: No, I am just correcting 
the record. 

Mr. Speaker: I think the member knows 
the avenues he has available to him if he 
wishes to prevail upon the House leaders to 
change the order of business. 



MAY 29, 1979 



2293 



Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I would like 
to speak to the intervention of the member 
for Carleton East with regard to her matter 
of privilege, because her privileges are in- 
volved here, if I might, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. Speaker: Very briefly. 

Mr. S. Smith: The member for Carleton 
East pointed out that in fact there was not 
a vote on the question of whether the 
Rolphton matter was to be taken up immedi- 
ately. 

Mr. Mackenzie: Why don't you get the 
facts straight, for once? 

Ms. Cigantes: Why don't you read the 
Hansard? 

Mr. S. Smith: I may say there was neither 
a motion nor a vote. She is correct in this. 
But the Liberal member, the member for 
Halton-Burhngton, representing our party, 
sought the agreement of the other two parties 
to have the matter dealt with expeditiously 
and immediately— 

Mr. MacDonald: Why don't you move it? 

Mr. S. Smith: —and such agreement was 
refused by the other two parties. Let that 
be on the record. 

Mr. Mackenzie: You haven't the courage 
of your convictions. Twisting the truth. 

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. 

Mr. S. Smith: Read the Hansard. 

Mr. Speaker: All honourable members of 
all parties know what their terms of reference 
are with regard to select or standing com- 
mittees of this House. If their will is frus- 
trated in the committee they can't seek 
recourse by coming and asking me to inter- 
vene. 

That ends the matter. It's beyond the pur- 
view of the chair. It must be resolved either 
in committee or through consultation between 
the House leaders. That's the end of the 
matter. 

VISITORS 

Mr. Speaker: I want to draw to the atten- 
tion of all honourable members that we have 
two very important guests in our gallery, as 
guests of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld). 
They are the Honom-able W. F. Birch, 
Minister of Energy, National Development, 
Science and Technology, for New Zealand, 
and Mr. Philip Harland, the Consul General 
of New Zealand. 

ORAL QUESTIONS 

RADIATION FROM X-RAYS 

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question to 
the Minister of Health. The minister has 



"«flid that people of Ontario should always 
accept X-rays rather than refuse them and 
run the risk of a poor or improper diagnosis. 
I would like to ask the minister what he 
would advise, as Minister of Health, for 
those people who are subjected to routine 
back X-rays for the purpose of being accept- 
ed into employment or for the purpose of 
continuing in employment. 

Is the minister familiar with the pro- 
cedure whereby applicants for a job, if the 
job involves lifting, are sent for routine 
back X-rays, even if they have no symptoms 
to indicate back problems, and are told that 
without an X-ray of this kind they will not 
be hired. The ostensible reason is to reduce 
compensation claims, and so on and so forth. 

Should citizens be forced to take X-rays 
as a condition of employment? Should they 
take those X-rays, even if there is no in- 
dication of illness from the clinical examina- 
tion? 

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I want 
a few days to consider that and discuss it 
with my colleague, the Minister of Labour 
(Mr. Elgie), as it pertains to employment 
standards and the rights of labour in em- 
ployment application situations. 

I'm not familiar with that type of situa- 
tion. If the member has details of any 
specific company or a particular type of in- 
dustry where it's come to his attention that 
this is happening I would appreciate having 
that information. It would help in my dis- 
cussions with my colleague. 

As regards diagnostic radiology, that of 
course is a clinical decision, as the member 
knows; it is for a physician, a dentist, a 
chiropractor or whomever to decide, using 
his best judgement, what is in the interests 
of the patient. 

Mr. S. Smith: I would certainly appreciate 
it if the minister would confer with the 
Minister of Labour and report to this House, 
since it appears to be a common practice that 
people are asked to imdergo these X-rays as 
a routine before taking heavy jobs. 

Since the minister has just mentioned again 
the question of chiropractic X-rayis, is he now 
prepared, upon reflection, to state to the 
people of Ontario that they should accept or 
refuse the full-length X-rays which are 
frequently recommended by chiropractors? 
If he recommends acceptance, will he tell 
us what the risk is to the patient of not 
accepting it? Will he also compare that to 
what the radiation dose is? Could he give 
us the latest figures in his ministry? 

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I had some figures with 
me a few days ago, as a matter of fact, on 
a comparison of exposures of typical radiolog- 



2294 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



ical views in chiropractors' offices and hos- 
pitals. I am sorry; I have misplaced them, 
but I will find them in a couple of days. 
Again, however, that is a clinical decision of 
a person registered undter the laws of On- 
tario, under the Drugless Practioners Act, 
and it is one which he makes in the best 
interests of the patient in his office. 
Mr. S. Smith: They should accept? 

Hon. Mr. Timbrel!: I do not for a moment— 
nor would! I— countenance an X-ray for the 
sake of an X-ray. But if I am^ with my doctor, 
or with whomever— 

Mr. S. Smith: Or with a chiropractor. 

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: —and he recommends 
it as part of my diagnosis, then I will accept 
it. 

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, 
Mr. Speaker: Since it is now more than two 
weeks since the minister indicated he was 
prepared to offer more funds to Dr. Taylor's 
group in the task force that was designed to 
redtuce the dangers of excessive radiation 
through X-rays, can the minister report 
whether his ministry has concluded' discussions 
with Dr. Taylor's task force, how much extra 
money is being given to that task force and 
by how much time their program of work is 
to be shortened as a result? 

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, in meet- 
ings with Drs, Hobbs, Taylor and Johns, I 
indicated to them that, if they were to submit 
a proposal for a program that would acceler- 
ate the development of these radiological 
standards and improvements in the delivery 
of radiological services, we would be pre- 
pared to fimd it. To date, they have not sub- 
mitted such a proDosal. But we still stand 
ready to do that: in fact, we are in regular 
contact— indeed, I would say daily contact— 
with this group, because it is important that 
we know what they are doing at every step 
along the way and that, likewise, thev know 
the day-to-day activities of our branch. 

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, a supple- 
mentary question: I would lik^ to ask the 
Minister of Health what he thinks of the 
ethics involved when an applicant signs a 
form givinor a companv the right to look at 
his medical records and submits to an X-ray 
examination, the results of which are then 
compared to X-rays that are on file in a 
hosDital. Would he care to comment on what 
he thinks of the ethics of that situation? 

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, it seems 
to me that falls within the ambit of the 
original question on the apparent practice— 
of which I had not been aware until today— 
of some employers to ask for, as the Leader 



of the Opposition has said, an X-ray. It seems 
to me that falls within the ambit of what I 
want to discuss with the Minister of Labour. 
As well, it seems to me that is the sort of 
thing that the royal commission, under Mr. 
Justice Krever, is examining as part of the 
whole question of access to medical informa- 
tion. 

DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTES 

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the Min- 
ister of the Environment, Mr. Speaker. Since 
he is undoubtedly aware that Interflow and 
K-D Enterprises, against whom he has laid 
something like 138 charges, is now succeeded 
by a company which is essentially the same 
but with a new name — namely, Frontenac — 
can the minister explain why Frontenac ap- 
pears to have the approval of the ministry in 
setting up a transfer station in Welland, the 
apparent aim of which will be to blend 
various liquid wastes and to then ship them 
for burning in Mississauga? Why would the 
minister be interested in continuing to ex- 
pand the operations of this particular firm, 
given its pitiful record in Hamilton and the 
fact these charges are still pending; and how 
does he think he can establish such a transfer 
station in Welland without an environmental 
assessment hearing? 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don't think the latter 
is necessarily so, although I'm not sure of 
that, Mr. Speaker. 

I think one of the things we have come 
to realize is that regardless of how we treat 
our PCB material here in Ontario we are going 
to need some transfer of waste from munic- 
ipalities, perhaps even across the border both 
ways — I want to make that very clear: both 
ways, both coming in and going out — so we 
hqve the prooer mix of material in order to 
destroy it adequately. I am informed that 
vou just don't take pure PCB material and 
burn it; you need an adequate mix. Of 
course, as the member knows, right now 
there is a more fantastic dilution than any- 
thing that has ever been done before. I think 
the dilution at the moment is one gallon to 
5,000 gallons. But always. I am told, you 
need to dilute materials like PCBs in order 
to incinerate them. 

Mr. S. Smith: Perhaps the first question 
was excessively lengthy and complex, but 
part of it was not answered. Does the min- 
ister intend to have an environmental assess- 
ment hearing of some kind prior to the 
establishment of this transfer station in Wel- 
land? 

Is he saying the reason we have a pos- 
sibility of PCB-contaminated material being 



I 



MAY 29, 1979 



2295 



imported from New York for waste disposal 
is we don't have enough oil here to bum our 
own PCBs? Is that why we have to import 
PCB-contaminated oil from New York? What 
is the reason we have to import PCB-con- 
taminated material from New York, as re- 
ported in the New York Times of Sunday, 
May 20? It says waste oil from Queens, New 
York, will be coming all the way up to a 
cement kiln near Toronto and incinerated, 
obviously referring to the St. Lawrence Ce- 
ment situation. What is the reason we have 
to import the stuflF? 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don't think I ever said 
we needed to import PCB-laden material. I 
said that to bum PCB-laden material we may 
very well need to import other oils and 
chemicals because it's extremely important 
to have the proper mixture to destroy the 
material completely, 100 per cent. 

If it's going to be a permanent station, yes, 
there will be a hearing. I think we made 
that very clear some time ago. If the station 
is to be there on an interim basis, there 
may not be a hearing. 

The experience at Smithville gave us very 
clear indication so we are not going to talk 
of transfer stations as something that would 
allow a continuous storage operation. A trans- 
fer station, from my point of view, is one 
where the material is in today and out 
tomorrow. Normally, with liquid wastes that 
isn't the way it is; it's on a continuing basis. 
Therefore, a public hearing will be held. We 
have had that policy for some time. 

Mr. S. Smith: If I may ask one more 
supplementary, Mr. Speaker, with your in- 
dulgence: Would the minister explain why 
he is still doing business on an expanded 
basis with the Interflow and K-D people 
operating under a new name while the other 
charges are still pending? Can he explain 
why any kind of transfer station which will 
be blending fuel, however transient the 
station may be— although one has serious 
doubts about that— should be established in 
Welland without a proper hearing? 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I didn't say that at all. 
I'm sorry, but the Leader of the Opposition 
is twisting that a little bit. I think while the 
charges are before the courts we have to 
respect that aspect of it. I think we also 
have to resi)ect the fact that if a company 
makes a significant change, it is legitimate 
that they be permitted to continue in business 
with new personnel. 

Mr. S. Smith: There is one new person. 
They are the same people, one person is new. 
[2:45] 



Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think the member 
would agree there has been a very sig- 
nificant change in that company. I am not 
going to stand here today and defend the 
company, not at all; that isn't my duty nor 
my responsibility. But I think the member 
should be aware there has been a significant 
change in the management aspect of the 
company. Whether or not he accepts that, 
the fact remains it is so. 

Mr. S. Smith: One guy from New York. 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Quite a new manage- 
ment team has been put into place, one 
from the States which had a good deal of 
experience in this particular subject matter. 
We will deal with this company on the basis 
of the evidence we have presented and that 
we can obtain. We will not prejudge a com- 
pany and say because it has once been in 
conflict of our orders it will forever be banned 
from business. That would mean the many 
convictions we have had in the province 
would forever put out of business all of 
those companies. This would hardly be a 
fair and equitable way of dealing with the 
law. 

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY 

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the 
Minister of Energy arising out of the report 
we had on the radiation incident at the 
Bruce nuclear plant and the report which 
was received yesterday. 

Since that report confirms evidence which 
was before the select committee a week or 
two earlier, can the minister explain why 
it is neither of the two workmen who re- 
ceived excess doses of radiation, both came 
from the Bruce heavy water plant, had any 
training in handling this kind of radiation 
situation in which they were working, and 
that even the workers with green qualifications 
who were meant to be supervising these 
two mechanical maintainers did not have 
training that included the radiological safety 
aspect of incidents with damage to irradiated 
fuel? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, I can't, but I would 
assume that is one of the questions that will 
be addressed tomorrow when the committee 
is dealing with the report. 

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary: What 
credibility should we put in the ministry's 
claims about the safety of Ontario nuclear 
power plants in view of the fact this report 
contains a summary with two and a half 
pages itemizing the failure of Ontario Hydro 
to protect the safety of the workers who 
work in a radiation environment? 



2296 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Hon. Mr. Auld: I think all three reports 
were tabled, as I understand it. The ques- 
tion of safety at the Bruce plant is one the 
select committee is looking into. 

It would seem to me from reading the 
report that Hydro is aware and is carrying 
out the recommendations that were made 
about further training and further equipment, 
communications and so on. I assume the 
select committee is going to be inquiring 
further into whether the plans of Hydro 
are adequate or not. 

Mr. Cassidy: In view of the fact there have 
been many reports in the United States about 
the problem of human error jeopardizing 
safety or security at nuclear power plants; and 
in view of the fact the Royal Commission on 
Electric Power Planning had a study last 
year which said essentially the same thing and 
warned of the problems of operator error or 
human error in nuclear power plants, can the 
minister say why it is that Hydro was not 
taking action in ordier to eliminate this many 
errors and problems in its safety procedures 
for cleaning up a radioactive accident? Can 
the minister say now how we can put 
credibility in Hydro's attempts to say that it 
is going to be safe from here on in? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think it has been said 
before by Hydro, by myself and by my pre- 
decessors as Minister of Energy that the 
operation of the nuclear plants is one of con- 
stant postulating of incidents, of changing 
procedures, improving procedures and im- 
proving equipment. 

(I would imagine that will continue forever 
because people are not perfect. I think the 
system they have adopted must be, compared 
to elsewhere, a pretty good one, inasmuch as 
they have an extremely fine safety record. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT OF 
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS 

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the 
Chairman of the Management Board of 
Cabinet, Mr. Speaker. On April 30, the 
Minister of Natural Resources told the On- 
tario Mining Association that eflFective last 
year the cabinet had implemented an overall 
policy of accountability to require an evalua- 
tion of the economic impact of all new pro- 
posals. He said that the cabinet is going to 
be required to know whether any new pro- 
gram duplicates existing programs and the 
impact on jobs, on investments, on the private 
sector and on the civil service. 

Can the minister confirm whether it is the 
government's policy to do economic impact 
analyses on new programs in legislation, and 



will he undertake to table those documents 
in this House? 

Hon. Mr. McCague: The ministries are 
requested to submit economic impact analyses 
when they are introducing legislation. I think 
that the tabling of those should be up to each 
individual minister, if he or she so desires. 

Mr. Cassidy: If I can direct this to the 
Chairman of Management Board, since he is 
the person who apparently sees these impact 
analyses, can the minister tell the House if 
the government has done formal economic 
impact analyses on the abolishing of succes- 
sion duties, the connected increase in OHIP 
premiums or on individual grants under the 
Employment Development Fund, and will the 
minister undertake to see that those dbcu- 
ments are tabled in the House? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can tell you the answer 
to all three without any doubt, and it will 
be totally contrary to what you people want 
it to be. It is in the budget. 

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been 
directed to the Chairman of Management 
Board. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: It has indeed. 

Hon. Mr. McCague: The items to which 
the leader of the third party refers are budget 
items. No, we did not have economic impact 
analyses of those prior to the budget. 

Mr. Makarchuk: What did you dio? Use a 
dart board? 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes. It has your 
picture on it. 

Mr. Cassidy: Can the minister say then 
how is the government planning on major 
fiscal measures if economic impact analyses 
are not being done on those particular pro- 
grams? On those programs where economic 
impact is being analysed, can the minister 
explain how is this Legislature meant to deal 
in a reasonable, informed kind of way, if 
those analyses, saying what the efiFect will 
be on taxes, on investment and on jobs, are 
not make available both to members of this 
Legislature and to the people of Ontario? 

Hon. Mr. McCague: The leader of the third 
party should be able to dream up his own 
questions. That very subject was the subject 
of quite a fine bill that the member for 
London North (Mr. Van Home) introduced 
last week in private members' business. At 
that time, I gave an extensive answer to the 
very points that the honourable member is 
raising. 

FOOD PRICES 

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
question for the Minister of Consumer and 



MAY 29, 1979 



2297 



Commercial Relations, following the informa- 
tion received in report number one of the 
food price monitoring program. Is the minis- 
ter aware that the statistics showing the re- 
sults of price changes in the major cities of 
southern Ontario all show that the Toronto 
market had higher prices? 

Since Toronto is a much larger market and 
in all probability should have lower prices 
generally, can the minister explain how the 
review board conclusion was received by the 
ministry and if the ministry is looking into 
the reasons behind that apparent shift of 
expectations of prices? 

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would 
have expected that because of the scope of 
the market the Toronto prices would be 
lower. The interesting thing is that increased 
competition in the markets other than 
Toronto are the reasons for the lowered 
prices. In addition, there is also the fact 
that prices in Sudbury are much lower. I 
think that is a direct result of the fact that 
stores have really chopped to the borderline 
because of the prolonged labour dispute 
which has cut down purchasing power in 
the area. 

Mr. Breithaupt: In any review which the 
minister may make of the monitoring going 
on under this program, is he aware there is 
still a problem with respect to metric con- 
version? There are some price differentials 
resulting where quantity may have de- 
creased even though the price may not 
have increased for the same product. Has 
there been any review of metric conversion 
to determine whether that decrease in size 
of packaging might have an effect on the 
price monitoring program which he is under- 
taking? 

Hon. Mr. Drea: We are in constant con- 
sultation with the federal government. The 
federal government has assumed the role of 
monitoring the changeover to metric speci- 
fications, both liquid and solid, to make sure 
there is no price increase just because of 
the different containers. 

Let's go back to Carnation milk. Carna- 
tion milk maintained its unit price so 
therefore it dropped its total price when the 
smaller metric can was used. That can now 
is back to the same price as the former large 
can because the federal government increased 
its support price for milk products. So the 
two aren't necessarily a price increase. One 
was done fairly within the metric situation. 
The other one was a change in federal gov- 
ernment support prices. 

Some weeks ago I was told there would 
be hundreds of metric complaints forwarded 



to me here by just one member of the third 
party. Since then I have received five. 
None was from that member. All have gone 
to the federal government and in no case 
was there really a price increase dictated by 
the switch from North America standards to 
metric. 

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Would the 
minister tell us if he's doing any follow-up 
where he finds there is an unreasonable price 
increase or where there's a wide discre- 
pancy between prices in one area compared 
to another? There is an example in beef, 
which is about 60 cents a pound more in 
Ottawa than it is in Toronto. Is the min- 
ister notifying the companies of his dis- 
pleasure when he finds unjustified increases 
and asking why there are these discrepancies? 

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, my people quite 
often talk not only to the retailer, but to 
wholesalers, to processors and, indeed, in 
the case of a farm product like beef, to the 
cattlemen's association. As a matter of fact, 
the cattlemen's association is a very good 
provider of information on just exactly 
what is happening today, what's likely to 
happen tomorrow and next week. 

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS 

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, in the absence 
of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) I 
would like to ask the Premier why his gov- 
ernment is forcing yet another Windsor 
hospital to go through court procedure to 
secure adequate resources to meet health- 
care needs in my community? Further, I 
would like to ask why he is doing this in 
view of the fact that Dr. Fry, Dr. Echlin, 
Dr. Lee and Dr. Baryluk, all doctors on 
staff at Metropolitan Hospital, have clearly 
indicated in affidavits that the needs of that 
hospital and health-care needs are not being 
met because of cutbacks in budget and 
closing of beds. 

Why is the Premier forcing them to go 
tlirough the court process? Why doesn't the 
Premier come to terms with the problem on 
his own? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I didn't get 
the last part of the question but dealing 
with the first part, I will be delighted to 
find out that information for the honourable 
member from the Minister of Health. 

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, 
on this very important issue, which surpris- 
ingly enough he has absolutely no facts on, 
maybe the Premier would also find out 
why yesterday in the social development 
committee the Minister of Health stated 



2298 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



there would not be a closure of beds, simply 
a conversion of beds in Ontario, yet in 
Windsor 109 active treatment beds are being 
closed and only 85 chronic care beds are 
being opened. This gives a net loss of 24 
beds as of April 1 this year. 
[3:00] 

Hon. Mr. Davis: With respect, I really 
think that is the kind of question that should 
be discussed during the estimates, but in that 
the member wants this information or further 
explanation — 

Mr. McClellan: If he would stick around 
we could ask him. 

Mr. Breaugh: He keeps running away. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, if the member for 
Oshawa wants to ask a supplementary ques- 
tion, I have never sensed that the Minister 
of Health would run away from him in any 
physical or mental sense, I have to tell the 
member — 

Mr. Breaugh: He ran away yesterday. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: — and there is no reason 
on earth why he would ever need to. If 
there is one member over there who wouldn't 
inhibit me it would be the member for 
Oshawa in the health field. I say that with 
kindness. 

I will get the answer for the honourable 
member if he doesn't get it during the 
estimates. 

Mr. B. Newman: May I ask the Premier 
if he is aware that the establishment of the 
burn unit at Metropolitan Hospital took over 
facilities or space that meant approximately 
16 beds were eliminated; and also that they 
do have a cancer unit, which means that 
unit can no longer be used for emergency 
cases; and that approximately 40 per cent of 
the emergency cases in the city of Windsor 
use the facilities of Metropolitan Hospital 
and, as a result, would the Premier not re- 
consider the bed allocation for that hospital? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am only going by mem- 
ory, and I am sure the member for Windsor- 
Walkerville has a better recollection than 
myself, but I think that the health council 
within that great community had some part 
in making these determinations. Knowing the 
support the member for Windsor- Walkerville 
has always publicly given to the health coun- 
cil in that community, as he does so many 
other public-spirited bodies, I don't think he 
would want to contradict the recommenda- 
tions they have made. 

Mr. Cooke: Your government set the ratios. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Surely the member for 
Windsor- Walkerville would expect us to ac- 
cept their recommendations, because I sense 



that that was the origin of this particular 
decision. If that assumption is in error, and 
I will check it with the Minister of Health, 
then I am sure he would be quite prepared 
to discuss it further with the member. 

DIOXIN IN FISH 

Mr. Kennedy: This is in respect to the 
first question of privilege raised by the mem- 
ber for Niagara Falls. We couldn't hear 
down here. I would like to ask the Minister 
of the Environment, did the member provide 
the source of the statistics and the informa- 
tion which he read into the record in al- 
legedly correcting an earlier point of priv- 
ilege or statement that he had made? 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: In answer to the hon- 
ourable member, if he did, I didn't hear it. 
I have no doubt that the member for Niagara 
Falls will tell us whether that was a scien- 
tific journal or a news magazine. I don't 
know what it was. Perhaps you would give 
him that privilege now, Mr. Speaker. 

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Playboy. 

Hon. Mr. Norton: Hush. Flash. 

Mr. Speaker: If the member for Niagara 
Falls wants to volunteer that information, I 
will allow him to do that. 

Mr. Kerrio: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I 
will enjoy getting into the habit of answering 
questions; I think we should do that. 

Mr. Speaker: Just the source, please. 

Mr. Kerrio: Yes. The information that I 
read into the record was taken from this 
month's Maclean's, and — 

Interjections. 

Hon. Mr. Norton: Will the honourable 
member please table that document? 

Mr. Kerrio: I really understand what it 
feels like over there now, I really do. 

Mr. Speaker: That is a very full and com- 
plete response. Thank you. That is the way 
all questions should be answered. 

ABITIBI PROSECUTION 

Mr. Gaunt: I have a question of the Min- 
ister of the Environment, in regard to the 
province's prosecution of Abitibi Paper Com- 
pany Limited over pollution by its Iroquois 
Falls paper mill, which has now been halted 
by the Ontario Court of Appeal. 

Why did the ministry officials privately, in 
correspondence, lead Abitibi engineers to 
presume that it would not be prosecuted 
provided it completed its improvement pro- 
gram, and then publicly turn around and lay 
22 charges under the Environmental Protec- 
tion Act and the Ontario Water Resources 



MAY 29, 1979 



2299 



Act, which prosecution, in the words of the 
provincial court judge, was "an abuse of the 
court process"? 

Mr. Roy: Oh, shame, shame. 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I appreciate having had 
some alert to this. I believe it was in 1976 
—some time ago— when that correspondence 
took place. Then the appeals and counter- 
appeals took place. We won one and we 
lost one. At the moment, I understand, we 
are contemplating whether to go to the 
Supreme Court of Canada on that particular 
issue. 

Mr. Gaunt: The charges were laid two 
years ago. 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That's right. We have 
had an appeal and we won the appeal. They 
appealed that decision and won it. It is now 
up to us to decide whether or not to take 
it to the Supreme Court of Canada. We 
haven't made that decision yet. 

Mr. Warner: Shades of Dow Chemical. 

Mr. Roy: Answer the question. 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: As to why that was 
in the correspondence, I can only look at 
that correspondence of some two or three 
years ago, and I am prepared to do so. 

Mr. Roy: It sounds like another Dow 
Chemical. 

Mr. Gaunt: The minister really hasn't 
answered my question, but let me pose a 
supplementary. Since this is another example 
of what appears to be an emerging pattern 
—we can think of Reed, Dow, and now 
Abitibi— where the ministry says one thing 
privately and then does another publicly, 
when is the ministry going to develop some 
consistency in making the polluter pay, and 
why hasn't the ministry brought in a system 
of automatic fines in a number of cases of 
non-compliance with control orders? 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think if I have ever 
heard a misnomer, it is "an automatic fine." 
I really do believe that for automatic fines 
to apply, if there is such a possibility, first 
of all, one has to be sure one has monitored 
the situation correctly and accurately. That 
has to be proven. That isn't exactly an auto- 
matic fine. It is another illustration of where 
one has to make one's case. So there is no 
easy way of assessing an industry just by 
reading the meter. That just doesn't work. 
I think that should be on the record. 

Mr. Warner: You paint yourself into a 
corner. 

Mr. Roy: Why is the minister not con- 
sistent? 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am glad the member 
reminded me of that and I thank him. I think 



we are very consistent. The truth of the 

matter is that many of the prosecutions- 
Mr. Roy: The minister is consistent in his 

inconsistency. 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: If the member will be 

quiet for a second- 
Mr. Speaker: Why does the member for 

Ottawa East have to be so consistent in his 

interruptions? 

Mr. Roy: You don't want me to em- 
barrass him, do you? 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Not as much as the 
honourable member is embarrassing himself. 

One of the things we are considering in 
our ministry is how much we should brag 
about our prosecutions. If memory serves 
me correctly, in the last nine months between 
30 and 50 charges have been laid, many of 
which have been successfully prosecuted. We 
don't, as a matter of policy— and there are 
valid reasons for this in law— go out and 
tell the world about what we are going to 
do relative to charges and how successful we 
are in the prosecutions. There is some denial 
of natural justice in so doing. 

Perhaps that does in a political sense and 
a policy sense make it somewhat difiicult 
for the members of the opposition who are 
genuinely interested in this issue— not neces- 
sarily the member for Ottawa East, but I 
am sure the member for Huron-Bruce— to 
know of our record in this regard. I would 
be more than pleased to supply members 
with those numbers of charges that have 
been laid, say, in the last six months. 

Mr. Warner: And how much the fines 
were. 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think members would 
be impressed, not only with the quantity 
but with the quality and the broad cross- 
section of people who were brought to the 
courts to answer for their misdemeanours, 
relative to the concerns of the environment. 

Mr. Samis: Were they even fined? 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think our enforce- 
ment policy is far better than perhaps the 
public is now aware. That concerns me a 
great deal. To make it better, we are going 
to have to appear to be bragging about 
prosecuting, not just the big offenders, be- 
cause that offends my sense of natural 
justice, but we have to put the whole record 
here for members to see, from the very 
large corporations of this province to in- 
dividuals. 

Mr. Samis: Hawkesbury is a great example. 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That record is there. 
If members would like it, I would be glad 



2300 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



to supply it. It is a very consistent record 
and members would be impressed by it if 
they saw it. 

ELECTRICAL IMPORTS 

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the 
Minister of Industry and Tourism. In view 
of the fact that we import 55 per cent of 
Canadian purchases of electronic goods and 
28 per cent of the consumption of electrical 
products; and in view of the fact that annual 
imports of electrical goods alone, amounting 
to $2.3 billion, are costing the people of 
Ontario approximately 52,000 direct jobs and 
about 150,000 jobs if one considers the spin- 
off job effect, will the minister tell us if he 
has received the report of the task force on 
the industry which he set up last year and, if 
so, if that task force report recommends the 
urgency of a program of import replacement? 

Will the minister also tell us when he will 
release to the House the full recommendations 
of that task force report and begin a serious 
program of import replacement in Ontario? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As I indicated during 
estimates, I am expecting that report in June. 
Soon after I get it, I will make it available, 
as I indicated in estimates, to the mem- 
bers of the House and to the public at large. 
Obviously, we will be responding to the 
recommendations of that task force. 

I should also add that any study of our 
"shop Canadian" program will indicate that 
this government above all governments in 
this province was first into the "shop Cana- 
dian" program. It was our idea. 

Mr. M. N. Davison: There is only one 
government in this province. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: A major component of 
the "shop Canadian" program is import re- 
placement. 

Mr. Laughren: The minister has a funny 
way of showing his concern when it comes 
to this industry by the time he is taking to 
respond to the need there. 

Since the minister promised yesterday he 
would carefully monitor foreign direct in- 
vestment in the fruit and vegetable canning 
industry in order to make sure that decision- 
making and ownership remained in this prov- 
ince in that particular industry, will he make 
the same commitment for the electrical in- 
dustry, which is already 65 per cent foreign- 
owned? Will he assure us that he will reject 
any applications that will lead to increased 
foreign ownership of this industry, which is 
of critical importance to Ontario? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can assure the mem- 
ber on the first count. Of course, we always 
carefully monitor all the Foreign Investment 



Review Agency applications with a view to 
the best interests of our province. 

Mr. Laughren: You agree with them all. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On the second count, 
I think it is overly simplistic to pretend that 
all applications should be either approved or 
rejected. 

Mr. Laughren: You don't care about jobs. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no question 
about the fact that the member's party takes 
a philosophical position that all FIRA applica- 
tions, whether they create a lot of employ- 
ment or not, ought to be turned down. 

Mr. Laughren: It's costing us jobs. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: If we followed what you 
fellows think, there wouldn't be any jobs. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Our party, and I think 
most parties that think about it for a moment, 
will agree that one can't prejudge all FIRA 
applications. Obviously there are other trade- 
offs to be concerned about. 

Mr. Laughren: We're talking about 150,000 
jobs. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: You would stop the world. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: For example, I want 
to make it quite dear to the member that if 
we got an application from a large firm in 
the electronics industry which would create 
a lot of long-term jobs with local decision- 
making and a sufficient degree of innovation 
so that we would have some assurance that 
the job flow out of that industry would stop, 
then the member is quite right, this govern- 
ment would look quite happily and positively 
upon that long-term, job-creating applica- 
tion. 

Interjections. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member's party, 
obviously, would say if it's job-creating but 
foreign-owned, it doesn't want it. We take a 
different position. 

ALCOHOLISM TREATMENT 

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have an answer to a 
question which was directed by the member 
for Ottawa Centre to the Provincial Sec- 
retary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) 
on Friday, May 25, relating to the matter 
of halfway houses for the treatment of 
alcoholics across the province. 

I would indicate, initially, that six years 
ago the Ministry of Community and Social 
Services was funding three halfway houses 
for persons with alcoholic problems across 
the province. Today we are funding some 
25 halfway houses in Ontario, from Windsor 
to Kenora and Cornwall, for a total of 
492 beds. I believe this is an indication of 



MAY 29, 1979 



2301 



the seriousness with which the ministry has 
attempted to address the problem. 

[3:15] 

In Ottawa, we are ahready funding two 
halfway houses, the 20-bed Maison Fraternity 
and the 11-bed Serenity House. In Renfrew, 
we're funding the 20-bed MacKay Manor. 
In Merrickville, we fund the l5-bed Buena 
Vista-on-the-Rideau, and in Cornwall, the 
16-bed Friendship House. Those are the 
eastern Ontario ones at the present time. 

Our approach, I believe, has been a very 
co-operative one with the Ministry of Health. 
Most of the halfway houses funded by the 
ministry would not have been funded if it 
had not been for the Ministry of Health's 
seed funding, through their grants in aid 
committee, over a period of several years. 

Funding by my ministry under the 
Charitable Institutions Act is 80 per cent, 
with the corporation having to raise an 
additional 20 per cent. We are funding 25 
halfway house beds for women at the present 
time. As the honourable member noted in 
one of his questions, there are 17 beds in 
Grant House in Beaverton and eight beds 
in Pedahbun Lodge in Toronto. 

We're not funding more beds for women 
at the moment because during the four- 
year period when we had open funding, we 
didn't receive further proposals for women, 
although they were welcomed during that 
period of time. 

The above commitments do not count the 
literally hundreds of hostel beds which the 
ministry is also funding in which basic food 
and shelter and a comfortable environment is 
provided for persons with alcoholic problems. 
Moreover, we are finding that many of the 
halfway houses, on their own initiative, are 
now developing financially self-suflBcient room 
and board operations at no cort to govern- 
ment for alcoholics who have completed 
detoxification and the first stage of rehabilita- 
tion at the halfway house. By stretching out 
the time frame for the alcoholic person, 
there are now indications the rehabihtative 
results are significantly improving in some 
of those operations. 

I would suggest to the honourable mem- 
ber with respect to his particular interest in 
the Amethyst Women's Addiction Centre, he 
might encourage them to approach, through 
the municipality, the matter of funding under 
the hostel program. Although there is no 
funding at the moment for additional half- 
way houses, I would certainly be willing to 
look at any proposal that requested funding 
under the hostel program for that portion 
of their program. 



Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since the minis- 
ter has admitted there is in fact, almost no 
halfway house accommodation for women 
alcoholics who are seeking rehabilitation, 
can he explain how it is that programs being 
shunted off and told to function like hostels 
are in fact going to work in a rehabilitative 
way, since the funding for hostels is really 
only enough to cover the room and board 
component and certainly not enough to 
cover any further services that may be neces- 
sary, such as counselling and those kinds of 
things to help alcoholics, female or male, 
get out of their sickness and get themselves 
better? 

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the per- 
spective on that differs depending on who 
one discusses it with. I would point out to 
the honourable member there are a number 
of programs that appear to be operating 
with considerable success, at least relatively 
so. 

I must say none of the programs being 
operated are spectacular in their results, as 
I'm sure the honourable member under- 
stands, as a result of the very nature of the 
condition that's being dealt with. 

I would point out there are a number of 
programs functioning quite well across this 
province under the hostel funding arrange- 
ment. Perhaps the honourable member might 
suggest to Amethyst House they re-examine 
some of their program proposals with respect 
to the cost implications to see if they could 
fit in with the other funding arrangements. 

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY 

Ms. Gigantes: I have a point of personal 
privilege. 

Mr. Speaker: Could it wait until after ques- 
tion period? 

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to do it right 
now, Mr. Speaker. I would like to get it on 
the record right now, while the leader of the 
Liberal Party is still in the House. 

Earlier, the leader of the Liberal Party 
asserted that the NDP members on the com^ 
mittee had insisted' that any investigation by 
the committee of the Rolphton nuclear plant 
and its safety should be held off until July. 

(I have obtained a copy of the Hansard 
report of that committee meeting, Mr. 
Speaker, and, for your benefit, I would like 
to read exactly what I said in discussing the 
matter. 

Mr. S. Smith: Read what all the members 
said. 

Ms. Gigantes: "We have a very special 
responsibility in Ontario to look at the public 
safety aspects of nuclear power and the 



2302 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Candu program. I agree totally with Alan"— 
Alan Schwartz, our legal counsel— "that to be- 
gin hearings on Rolphton tomorrow would 
amount to having the lawyers, perhaps, and 
the petitioners involved in the Rolphton action 
come before us and present their case. It 
would involve having Hydro and the AECB 
come into present their cases." 

Mr. Speaker: Order. What the honourable 
member is saying is that there is a difference 
of opinion or interpretation as to what trans^ 
pired in the committee. That is quite legiti- 
mate. But I do not think it is a legitimate 
way of using the time of the question period 
in this House. There is nothing out of ordter. 
There is a difference of opinion. I do not 
think any of the member's privileges have 
been abrogated, and I do not see any legiti- 
mate point of order or point of privilege. 

Mr. Warner: He can twist and distort all 
he likes. 

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker- 
Mr. Speaker: Order. 

STRIKES 

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a question 
of the Minister of Labour. Would he report 
to this Legislature on the position of two 
strikes in my area, one being the strike at 
the Pyrotenax of Canada Limited plant in 
Trenton and the other being the strike of 
the Canadian Union of Public Employees 
against the city of Belleville? 

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, Mr. Speaker, 
with regard to the employees of the city of 
Belleville, the member will recall that I was 
in Belleville recently and had! an opportunity 
to speak to the acting mayor about the situa- 
tion. I have been advised, as recently as 
yesterday, that there may be a meeting of the 
parties this afternoon about the matter. I 
have no information to report on that meet- 
ing, naturally, but I think the fact they are 
getting together is very important. 

As to the question of the Pyrotenax com- 
pany in Trenton, it is my understanding that 
the mediator, Romaine Verheyen, has 
arranged for a meeting of the parties on 
Monday afternoon. 

Mr. O'Neil: As a supplementary, could I 
ask the minister if it would be possible for 
him to speak personally to the people who 
are handling especially the strike at the 
Pyrotenax plant at Trenton, to see if they 
would approach it to try to get a quicker 
solution? They have been accused of not 
being too enthusiastic, or not trying to get 
the parties together to come up with a 
solution. 



Hon. Mr. Elgie: I cannot let that go by 
without a comment because, frankly, I think 
the mediators usually do a superb job, and 
everywhere they go they receive praise for 
the energetic way in which they try to me- 
diate without meddling. Romaine Verheyen, 
the mediator who is going to be bringing 
the parties together on Monday, is one of 
our finest mediators. I will be pleased to 
reinforce the member's concerns with him, 
but I would also like to reinforce the support 
that I feel I have for those mediators. 

CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS 

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
question of the Minister of Community and 
Social Services. I wonder if the minister 
would be prepared to give us the specific 
locations of the labour camps in northern 
Ontario in which comrade minister is pro- 
posing to incarcerate persons who are delin- 
quent in their child support payments? 

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure 
that today's press release by the honourable 
member is one of his more colourful ones. 
I thought that he might refer to me as the 
tinpot demagogue, as he did in the — 

Mr. McClellan: Okay; tinpot demagogue. 

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am sinre that the hon- 
ourable member realizes that, on occasion, 
people odier than himself might engage in 
a little hyperbole and rhetoric. 

Obviously the point I was trying to make 
was that, in my opinion — and this is what I 
was trying to express— there are certain 
limits to the bounds of appropriate behaviour 
in any community. It seems to me that when 
we, in this society, see about us fathers who 
have abandoned their children and their 
wives, and who are in a position where they 
could afford to continue to support those 
people, that is inappropriate behaviour. That 
is behaviour that I do not, and vidll not, 
condone. 

Mr. McClellan: Everybody agrees with 
that. Let the minister tell us about his fat- 
uous deductions. 

Mr. S. Smith: This isn't the first year it 
happened. 

Mr. Speaker: Order. 

Mr. McClellan: Everybody agrees with 
that. Tell us about your fatuous suggestions. 

Hon. Mr. Norton: Realistically, the mem- 
ber understands and I understand, and I 
believe everyone in the House understands, 
that there are other ways of enforcing those 
orders which were discussed here in the 
House yesterday. When I was asked how I 



MAY 29, 1979 



2303 



felt about it, I obviously engaged in a little 
rhetoric — 

Mr. Bradley: The member for Sarnia (Mr. 
Blundy) had to chase you. 

Mr. McClellan: Impetuosity overcame you. 

Hon. Mr. Norton: — to try to point out 
that that was behaviour I really thought 
should be condemned by our society; and 
figuratively speaking, it's the kind of be- 
haviour for which one ought to be banished 
from our society. I stand by that. 

Mr. Martel: You said northern Ontario was 
Siberia. 

Hon. Mr. Norton: Obviously there are no 
such labour camps in existence or contem- 
plated. 

Mr. Bradley: You got the headlines; the 
member for Sarnia gave them to you. 

Mr. McGlellan: Supplementary: Leaving 
aside the Siberian solution, I don't under- 
stand, and I would like the minister to ex- 
plain, what is the big difficulty the govern- 
ment has in persuading the family court 
judges to issue garnishees or attachment of 
wages against people who are delinquent in 
their child support payments? What is the 
big problem here? 

Hon. Mr. Norton: In terms of those specific 
aspects, I think that question might more 
appropriately be referred to the Attorney 
General (Mr. McMurtry). 

Mr. Warner: Redirect it; let's get an 
answer. 

Mr. McClellan: I will redirect it. 

Mr. Bradley: He's about to leave the 
House. 

Hon. Mr. Norton: But I would point out 
that I do believe the system of automatic 
enforcement is one possible answer. 

Mr. Breithaupt: You could check out 
Minaki, it isn't being used. 

Mr. McClellan: What excuse is there for 
your failure to deal with the issue? 

Hon. Mr. Norton: There is also, I think, an 
important responsibility upon all of us in 
this chamber, and others assuming certain 
responsibilities throughout our society, to 
clearly get the message across that with or 
without changes in the methods of enforce- 
ment- 
Mr. McClellan: Enforce the law; never 
mind the lectures, enforce the law. 

Hon. Mr. Norton: —there is such a thing 
as responsibility- 
Mr. WamCT: You've shirked yours. 

Hon. Mr. Norton: —and the fathers of those 
children have a responsibility. It should not 



be up to government in every case to expend 
money to see that people live up to the re- 
sponsibilities they have assumed for their 
children and families. 

Mr. Warner: You've shirked your respon- 
sibility. 

Mr. McClellan: May I redirect? 

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nipissing. 

Mr. Bolan: Does the minister not think 
he owes the people of northern Ontario an 
apology for thinking they are nothing more 
than some kind of a cesspool for those people 
of southern Ontario who are not doing what 
they should be doing? It's his ministry's re- 
sponsibility. Why doesn't he hold up his 
responsibility? 

Mr. Swart: That's two of you, you and 
Stuart Smith. 

Mr. Warner: He wants to close Windsor 
and you attack the north. 

Hon. Mr. Norton: I now know who placed 
that anonymous and mysterious telephone 
call to my office first thing this morning. 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The member for 
Nipissing. 

Mr. Bolan: I vdsh I had thought of that. 

Ms. Gigantes: It's really funny, eh? 

Hon. Mr. Norton: Obviously there was no 
slight intended for northern Ontario- 
Mr. Bolan: Apologize. 

Hon. Mr. Norton: — 'but having made a 
passing reference to Siberia, and having de- 
cided that probably the Russians wouldn't 
want them, I had to find an alternative. 

Mr. Speaker: The member for Brant- 
Oxford-Norfolk. 

Mr, Nixon: With a new question. 

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, Bob. 

Mr. Nixon: I'm not in default of any of my 
payments. 

STRAWBERRY MARKETING 

Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister 
of Agriculture and Food if he recalls the 
situation about a year ago when imported 
strawberries replaced those produced on our 
own farms, resulting in a financial loss to our 
own producers and the plowing over of so 
many acres of the producing strawberries, 
particularly in the Norfolk area? Whether he 
recalls it or not, does he have a program 
whereby we are going to see that our locally- 
grown strawberries are put into the stores at 
a price from which the producers would 
benefit as well as the consumers? 

Hon. W. Newman: I didn't know the mem- 
ber had planted so many strawberries. 



2304 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Mr. Conway: Let Joe Clark have them in 
his cabinet. 

Hon. W. Newman: Anyway, I would like to 
point out to the member that I recall very 
well what happened last year. If he will 
recall, in the final analysis as far ais straw- 
berries were concerned last year, most, if not 
all of the top quality strawberries, were 
moved onto the market and sold. 

Mr. Kerrio: What you said was let them 
eat shortcake. 

Hon. W. Newman: Because the member 
saw certain pictures and certain things hap- 
pened-^but he has the background on that 
story now because he knows I told him what 
had happened. 

Mr. Nixon: It was in my riding. Don't tell 
me what happened. I was out in the fields. 
Hon. W. Newman: Last year, I want to 
make it very clear, most Ontario strawberries 
Were moved out. What I'm saying is that this 
year, through our Foodland Ontario program- 
Mr. Gaunt: Tell us about Ontario food land! 
Hon. W. Newman: Do you want to listen 
or not? Through our Foodland Ontario pro- 
gram, in co-operation with the chain stores, 
we are hoping that— unfortunately, because 
of the way the weather is this year- 
Mr. Roy: If there is a problem, it's the 
feds' fault. 

Hon. W. Newman: It looks as though all 
of the strawberries could come on again at 
the same time this year, the way things are 
shaping up. We are making every eflFort to 
work with all those concerned to make sure 
the Ontario strawberry crop is moved onto 
the market and moved out so that the farm- 
ers will not suflFer. 

Mr. Kerrio: Can't you bring some of them 
on sooner? 
[3:30] 

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Can the min- 
ister explain to the House whether or not 
"every efiFort" means having someone on his 
staff go to the big supermarkets and actually 
arrange for the crop to come in and be 
featured in the major urban centres? Does 
he recall that only Knob Hill Farms last 
year carried the strawberries— maybe as a 
loss leader, I don't know. That was the only 
concern that really moved any significant 
number of fresh strawberries in the Toronto 
market, the rest were all coming in from 
California and Mexico. 

Hon. W. Newman: It is all very well to 
make statements like that, but— 

Mr. S. Smith: Driving down the domestic 
prices. 



Hon. W. Newman: The member knows so 
much, I am amazed he is there. He 
wouldn't know a strawberry from— I won't 
get into that. 

We will be working with the chains; we 
did get co-operation from them last year. 
There was a back-up at the first w'hen US 
strawberries were coming in, but one thing 
these members forget is— no, I am sorry, 
things have changed. If a certain party 
dropped tariffs in 24 hours and had they put 
those same tariffs on they said they were 
going to put on we wouldn't be faced with 
a problem at all this year. We are doing 
our part, but they didn't do theirs. 

Mr. Makarchuk: In view of the fact the 
testimony that was given to the public ac- 
counts committee by representatives on the 
Ontario Food Terminal operation indicated 
tliey did not have a pohcy of giving prefer- 
ential treatment to Canadian or Ontario 
growers, would the minister talk to them 
and ensure that Canadian growers of straw- 
berries and everything else get preferential 
treatment? Alternatively, would he ensure 
there is a policy within that organization to 
ensure that Canadians get first chance at 
selling their crops vis-a-vis the Americans? 

Hon. W. Newman: I doubt if the mem- 
ber has ever been out to the food terminal, 
nor does he have any idea how it works or 
even operates. Has he been there? 

Mr. Makarchuk: Yes. 

Hon. W. Newman: All right. 

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have a 
response? 

Hon. W. Newman: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. 
I would be glad to respond and point out 
there are many stalls out there for the 
farmers of this province. 

Mr. S. Smith: There's one right now. 

Hon. W. Newman: There is one for that 
member too. There are many out there for 
the use of the farmers who bring their pro- 
duce in to sell wholesale to all the buyers 
for all the stores across the province. 

As far as the wholesale houses are con- 
cerned, they lease space on a long-term 
lease basis. I think it is a 30-year lease, 
renewable. They lease space and we have 
no control over what they handle. 

As far as the others are concerned, farmers 
by the hundreds and thousands do bring 
their produce in there to sell each day. Tlie 
member should go out there some morning 
at six o'clock to see it. 

OHC EVICTION 

Mr. di Santo: I have a question for the 
Minister of Housing. Is the minister aware of 



MAY 29, 1979 



2305 



the case of a North York tenant who was 
evicted last week by Ontario Housing? Sub- 
sequently, while the case was in court, the 
eviction order was cancelled by Ontario 
Housing. The OHC lawyer told the court on 
Thursday he was unaware of any action 
taken by the housing corporation to nullify 
the already-executed eviction. 

Can the minister tell us if he has inves- 
tigated and if he has found some responsibi- 
lity in the spiteful behaviour of Ontario 
Housing officials and if he is ready to punish 
the responsible people? 

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am aware of the situa- 
tion that developed last week and I believe 
it has corrected itself. Clearly there had 
been an experience with that tenant for some 
period of time in rent arrears. There had 
been a court order obtained by the Ontario 
Housing Corporation back in December, 
which was not acted upon, on legal advice, 
until later on in the year. 

As a result of further discussions with that 
tenant, with her legal counsel and the law- 
yers representing Ontario Housing Corpora- 
tion, to the best of my knowledge the prob- 
lem has been resolved. 

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY 

Ms. Cigantes: I attempted to cite a ques- 
tion of personal privilege earlier in the ques- 
tion period. The Speaker suggested that it 
was a question of opinion about what the 
facts had been in the case. I believe there 
was a misstatement of fact which may have 
been caused inadvertently by the leader of 
the Liberal Party because he was misin- 
formed by members of his caucus about what 
had happened at the select committee. I 
would like to bring those facts back to your 
attention because I feel my privilege as a 
member of the House and as a member of 
that committee has been abridged. 

Mr. Speaker: Is the honourable member 
suggesting that her privilege has been in- 
fringed upon because somebody disagreed 
with her? 

Ms. Cigantes: No, Mr. Speaker. I am sug- 
gesting that the problem is not a difference 
of opinion about what happened, but rather 
a difference of fact. The facts as presented 
by the Liberal leader, however inadvertently, 
were misleading to this House and were an 
infringement on my privileges as a member. 
I would like to read the section from the 
select committee deliberations in which the 
question of whether we would consider the 
Rolphton safety question before July was 
discussed. The Leader of the Liberal Party 



said that the NDP members had not been 
willing to discuss the matter before July. 
What I said on page HA-1535-2, Mr. 
Speaker, was: "We have a very special re- 
sponsibility in Ontario to look at the public 
safety aspects of nuclear power and the 
Candu program. I agree totally with Alan" — 
Alan Schwartz — "that to begin hearings on 
Rolphton tomorrow would amount to having 
the lawyers, perhaps, and the petitioners in- 
volved in the Rolphton action come before 
us to present their case. It would involve 
having Hydro and the AECB come in and 
present their cases, but we would have none 
of the incident reports. We would have none 
of the documents we can obtain from Hydro 
concerning this particular plant, which would 
help us in our questioning on this matter. 
We must settle how we get hold of those 
documents, which ones we will have and 
when they will become available to us as a 
committee before we can undertake any 
satisfactory hearing of the question." 

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that these 
lines from Hansard indicate that it was my 
concern, as a member of that committee, that 
we have those documents, which are starting 
to be made available. The steering committee 
of the select committee is meeting with On- 
tario Hydro tomorrow to obtain the first 
documents. My only concern about starting 
the hearings early was that we would be 
proceeding before we had adequate docu- 
mentation on which to question either AECB 
or Ontario Hydro. I therefore feel that it is 
encumbent on the Liberal leader to — 

Mr. Speaker: Order! What the honourable 
member has said just confirms what I ad- 
duced from what was said: there is a dif- 
ference of opinion as to what transpired, 
what was said, what was intended in the 
committee. Surely, it's not an abrogation of 
your privileges as a member of this House. 
There is obviously a difference of opinion, 
but don't ask me to adjudicate it. 

MOTION 

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 

Hon. Mr. Grossman moved that notwith- 
standing the orders of the House, the order 
of precedence for private members' public 
business be changed so that Mr. Epp's ballot 
item be listed and called for debate June 14, 
Mr. Ruston's ballot item be listed and called 
for debate June 21, and Mr. Reed's ballot 
item be listed and called for debate on 
July 12. 

Motion agreed to. 



2306 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



INTRODUCTION OF BILLS 

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT 

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of 
Bill 103, An Act to amend the Municipal 
Act. 

Motion agreed to. 

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN 
TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT 

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of 
Bill 104, An Act to amend the Municipality 
of Metropolitan Toronto Act. 

Motion agreed to. 

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this bill 
proposes a number of amendments to the 
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, 
many of them requested by Metropolitan 
Toronto council. It will authorize the coun- 
cil to impose terms and conditions when 
delegating its powers to lease or license the 
use of sidewalks and imtravelled portions 
of Metro roads to an area municipality. It 
will exempt the O'Keefe Centre from realty 
and business tax and it will authorize the 
O'Keefe employees to join the Ontario Mu- 
nicipal Employees Retirement System, that 
is the OMERS pension system. , 

The bill will extend to the Metropolitan 
Toronto coimcil certain powers given to local 
municipalities and counties in the Municipal 
Amendment Act, 1978, number 3. These are 
the authority to provide liabihty insurance 
for members of council and local boards to 
invest in credit unions, to accept historic 
documents and to control parking on munic- 
ipal property. 

It will enable the metropolitan corporation 
to control the eflfluent discharge from area 
municipal sewers into Metro's trunk sewers 
and treatment plants, and finally, it will in- 
crease the maximum rates of interest that 
the metropoHtan corporation may charge an 
area municipality for failure to pay its levy 
from one per cent to one and a quarter 
per cent per month. 

CONDOMINIUM AMENDMENT ACT 

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of 
Bill 105, An Act to amend the Condominium 
Act, 1978. 

Motion agreed to. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: The proposed amend- 
ment to the Condominium Act, Mr. Speaker, 
is to delete the requirement in section 53(3) 
for a proposed declarant to pay interest on 
the moneys received on account of the pur- 
chase price prior to delivering title to the 
purchaser. The amendment is necessary be- 



cause of the addition in the new act to section 
51(6) which sets the limit on the amount of 
rent or occupancy charge which a purchaser 
may be required to pay prior to receiving 
title. 

The original intention of the requirement 
for payment of interest was to ensure that a 
purchaser of a proposed unit was in no 
worse position than a purchaser of an actual 
unit who received .title. The limitation on 
the amount of rent to be charged contained 
in section 51(6) ensures this continuance. The 
additional requirement for payment of in- 
terest is inequitable. 

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN 
TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT 

Mr. Epp moved first reading of Bill 106, 
An Act to amend the Municipality of Metro- 
politan Toronto Act. 

Motion agreed to. 
[3:45] 

AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT 
DISCLOSURE ACT 

Mr. Riddell moved first reading of Bill 
107, An Act to provide for disclosure of non- 
resident investment in agricultural land in 
Ontario. 

Motion agreed to. 

Mr. Riddell: The purpose of the bill is 
to estabhsh a means of ascertaining the 
nature and extent of non-resident ownership 
of agricultural land in Ontario. The bill re- 
quires every non-resident person, as defined 
in the act, to submit a report to the Minister 
of Agriculture and Food concerning each 
purchase of agricultural land. The bill also 
requires land registrars in Ontario to inform 
the minister about every conveyance of agri- 
cultural land registered by the land registrar 
that bears an affidavit indicating that the 
transferee is a non-resident person. 

The minister must report to the Legislative 
Assembly on an annual basis concerning the 
nature and extent of non-resident ownership 
of agricultural land and the report is then re- 
ferred to a standing committee of the 
assembly for consideration. 

PUBLIC ACCOUNTANCY 
AMENDMENT ACT 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading 
of Bill 108, An Act to amend the Public 
Accountancy Act. 

Motion agreed to. 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The present section 
provides for a $25 maximum on fees. This 



MAY 29. 1979 



2307 



maximum has remained imchanged since 
the act was first passed in 1950. The amend- 
ment permits a counsel to set the fee, subject 
to the approval of the Lieutenant Governor 
in Council. 

EVIDENCE AMENDMENT ACT 

Hon. Mr. MoMurtry moved first reading 
of Bill 109, An Act to amend the Evidence 
Act. 

Motion agreed to. 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The amendment to 
this legislation permits the use of the oflBcial 
translation of statutes in French-language 
proceedings. 

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 
AMENDMENT ACT 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading 
of Bill 110, An Act to amend the Adminis- 
tration of Justice Act. 

Motion agreed to. 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The purpose of the 
bill is to authorize the fees payable in 
court proceedings for the services of court 
officers to be fixed by regulation made by 
the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Fees 
are now fixed under the rules made by the 
rule-making body for each court. The 
amendment will create the machinery to 
fix a more realistic tariff of fees. 

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading 
of Bill 111, An Act to amend the Judicature 

Act. 

Motion agreed to. 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this 
legislation contains a number of amend- 
ments of a routine nature, including an 
amendment to complement the proposed 
changes to the Administration of Justice Act 
with respect to tariffs and fees payable to 
court oflBces. 

As well as a number of routine amend- 
ments, there are several substantive amend- 
ments, which are as follows: Section 4 pro- 
vides for interest to be payable on judge- 
ments at the prime rate. Section 5 provides 
for the divisional court to sit as a single 
judge in certain instances. Section 6(5) per- 
mits the rules committee of the Supreme 
Court to fix a rate of interest to be applied 
in determining the capitalization value of an 
award in respect of future damages. 



COUNTY JUDGES 
AMENDMENT ACT 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of 
Bill 112, An Act to amend the County 
Judges Act. 

Motion agreed to. 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the 
purpose of this legislation is to remove the 
term "junior judge" from the amended act 
and related acts. The term "junior judge" 
has no significance as far as jurisdiction is 
concerned, but the amendment has been 
brought in because the term "junior judge," 
although it may well have been appropriate 
at one time, no longer accurately reflects 
the nature of the office and the duties 
performed. 

PROVISIONAL COURT 
(CIVIL DIVISION) PROJECT ACT 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading 
of Bill 113, An Act for the Establishment 
and Conduct of a Project in the Municipality 
of Metropolitan Toronto for the Development 
of Improved Methods of Processing Certain 
Civil Actions. 

Motion agreed to. 

Hon. Mr. IdcMurtry: Mr. Speaker, this 
legislation refers to the statement 1 gave 
earlier establishing what might be termed 
more succinctly as the Provincial Court (Civil 
Division) Project Act. 

SCHEDULING OF BUSINESS 

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. 
Speaker: I want to obtain your assistance 
in the matter that was being debated this 
afternoon with respect to the way in which 
the business of the House is conducted. 

'I realize the Speaker cannot thrust himself 
into ruling whether or how things will be de- 
bated, but the impression the acting govern- 
ment House leader is trying to convey to the 
House is that once the order of business is 
scheduled on Thursday of one week, it can- 
not be altered under any circumstances 
during the next week. In fact the minister 
today already went against his own sug- 
gestion when he moved the change in orders 
for the private members' bills. That was 
not discussed with anyone, although I did not 
raise the matter at the time. 

If the government House leader is going 
to play that type of game, which he tried 
to imply this afternoon he was prepared 
to play, then he should not be allowed to 
introduce a motion such as he just intro- 
duced saying we are going to change the 
order of business. 



2308 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



I can give you at least five illustrations, 
Mr. Speaker, where the House leader had 
arranged an order of business on a Thursday 
and the government was forced to change 
it the following week. I remind the acting 
government House leader that the govern- 
ment introduced t'hree bills on a Tuesday 
evening which were not scheduled for debate. 
I can remind him of the member for Prince 
Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) who de- 
cided he would withdraw from the private 
members' debate on the spur of the moment 
last Thursday. I can remind him of the fact 
that the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. 
Bernier) didn't come into the House be- 
cause he was fogged in— it's not unusual, but 
he was fogged in that day- 
Mr. Laughren: It ihas nothing to do with 
the weather either. 

Mr. Martel: —and the order of business had 
to be altered. In this case they are hanging 
their hat on that because they don't want 
to debate the matter; they don't want to sit 
down and discuss it. Yet When it is conven- 
ient to change the order of business, long 
days after the order of business has been 
read for the following week, the government 
prevails on everyone else around here to 
change that order of business. < 

They can't have it both ways, Mr. Speaker, 
and I am asking you, sir, if the government 
is in a position where something which was 
scheduled cannot proceed are we in a posi- 
tion to see the House adjourned, as was the 
case when the member for Prince Edward- 
Lennox did not proceed' with his bill, or when 
the government introduces three bills because 
it had run out of business? 

Am I to assume thait in the future when 
something occurs which changes that order 
of business we simply retmn to our oflBces? 
From what the acting government House 
leader said today, the order can't be changed 
once it had been debated last Thursday. It is 
etched in stone when it is convenient for the 
government, but it can't have it both ways. 
I have no objection to a change in the order 
to accommodate the member from Fort Fran- 
ces, but there was no discussion. 

What they are playing over there is a little 
game that can't be tolerated. It's either what's 
announced on Thou-sday at 3; 30 p.m., or it's 
nolt. If they want to change the order of 
business as a matter of accommodation then 
they have to do the same as the Liberal 
House leader or myself when we have iwob- 
lems that arise. I think what they are at- 
tempting to do is simply nonsense. If they 
want to proceed that way, there is no way 
this House can work with any type of har- 



mony. I would ask your intervention, Mr. 
Speaker, on that basis. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if I may 
quickly respond, to correct the record, I 
really didn't say earlier that the schedule as 
agreed ux>on was etched in stone. The system 
is that the House leaders get together and 
try to agree, so that everyone will know what 
the order of business is for the following 
week. 

In deciding from time to time whether we 
are going to accommodate certain things that 
happen Which more or less are unforeseen, 
obviously, the history of how these Ithings 
came about is quite relevant to the consider- 
ations that the House Leaders have to make. 
What I was pointing out to the House earlier 
was that nothing had changed from Wednes- 
day afternoon to today, and nothing had 
changed from Wednesday afternoon until 
Thursday when the House leaders met and 
could have gone through all of the matters 
that have been raised today. 

All the circumstances were known at that 
time and, clearly, lest the impression be that 
the NDP House leader has been badly dealt 
with by the other House leaders, we should 
make the record quite clear. The items he is 
complaining of were not in fact discussed at 
the traditional tribunals and meeting places 
and times established by the three House 
leaders. 

He then comes to the House this week and 
suggests that he is being unfairly dealt with 
because matters which were foreseen by him, 
fully known to him and his party last Thurs- 
day at noon, now they have decided they are 
unhappy wdth the decisions they made, so 
they are appealing to this House, alleging 
that someone is saying the order is etched in 
stone, or that someone is being unco-oper- 
ative. In fact, the very harmony the member 
refers to depends upon all these matters 
which he is aware of being discussed at the 
regular meetings on Thursday so that the 
House can be informed on Thiirsday after- 
noon on the basis of all the facts which 
everyone has at hand at that time. 

To come in this week and to suggest that 
there there is now something that is urgent or 
pressing that wasn't known about last week 
is to attempt, by the very nature of that alle- 
gation, to destroy the very harmony the 
member suggests he is so anxious to preserve. 

Mr. Martel: That's not quite factual, be- 
cause— 

Mr. Nixon: Don't we have any business 
to do here? 

Mr. Martel: —I went to the government 
House leader Friday morning. I didn't wait 



MAY 29, 1979 



2309 



until this week. The report my colleague 
moved was moved Thursday afternoon after 
the House leaders' meeting. The statemenit 
by the Minister of Energy was in fact made 
Thursday afternoon after the House leaders 
met. So he can't play that game. I simply 
ask the acting government House leader how 
he moves a motion today about switching the 
order for private members' bills in consul- 
tation? When did that occur? 

[4:00] 

Mr. Speaker: Obviously there's a difference 
of opinion as to the process between the 
House leaders. As I indicated earlier, when 
it was raised during question period, it is not 
within the domain of the Chair to order the 
business of the House. The matter is closed. 

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON 
NOTICE PAPER 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I would 
like to table the answer to question 185 and 
the interim answers to questions 182, 183, 
and 184 standing on the notice paper. (See 
appendix, page 2326. ) 

ORDERS OF THE DAY 

House in committee of the whole. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, per- 
haps I might confirm that with the consent 
of the opposition House leaders the votes on 
these matters will be stacked to 5:45 this 
afternoon. 

Mr. Chairman: Is the committee agreed to 
that suggestion? 

Agreed. 

NIAGARA MUNICIPAL HYDRO- 
ELECTRIC SERVICE ACT 

Consideration of Bill 29, An Act to provide 
for Municipal Hydro-Electric Service in tlie 
Regional Municipality of Niagara. 

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to. 

On section 4: 

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, the members of 
both of the other parties will have received 
an amendment from me some time ago on 
section 4 of this bill. I would like to move 
that motion now. 

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Swart moves that sec- 
tion 4(17) of the bill be amended by adding 
thereto the following clause: 

"(c) may direct, before the first day of 
October 1979, the the commission established 
by section 2 in respect of the municipality to 
commence on a day specified by the bylaw 
the distribution and supply of power in some 
areas of the municipality that Ontario Hydro 



served immediately before the coming into 
force of this act and on the specified day 
subsections 10 and 12 to 16 and section 7 
shall apply with necessary modifications to 
the assets and employees 6f those areas of 
Ontario Hydro in the municipality." 

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I think the in- 
tent of this amendment is clear to all mem- 
bers of the House, but perhaps I should point 
out the general part of subsection 17 which 
reads as follows: "The council of each of the 
towns of Grims'by, Lincoln, Niagara-on-the- 
Lake and Pelham and the township of West 
Lincoln, with the consent of Ontario Hydro 
and without the assent of the municipal elec- 
tors, by bylaw, . . ." 

There are two clauses following, the first of 
which may direct the commission to service 
the whole municipality and the second which 
may dissolve the commission. This adds a 
third section which would provide that the 
municipality, before October 1, may review 
the commission boundaries within their mu- 
nicipalities and pass a bylaw which would 
esta'blis'h boundaries which would be dif- 
ferent from those which existed 10 years 
prior to this time when the municipal Hydro 
commissions were frozen. 

It is my hope that the parliamentary 
assistant, the member for Durham West ( Mr. 
Ashe), will reconsider and accept this amend- 
ment. I suggest that it is a logical amend- 
ment, after the steps which the govermnent 
has taken to change the general program for 
restructuring hydro in this province. The 
member for Ehirham West will remember 
that the original intention of restructuring 
hydro was to provide for hydro authorities 
to be established at the regional level where 
regional governments existed. Subsequent to 
that, the government changed its policy so 
that local municipalities could be the author- 
ity for providing hydro within that munici- 
pality. 

Mr. Haggerty: Isn't regional hydro w'hat 
the government wanted? 

Mr. Swart: Subsequent to that, the gov- 
ernment backed down once again and decid- 
ed that it would permit two authorities with- 
in a municipality to provide hydro, one the 
rural hydro and the other a hydro commis- 
ion to serve a given area. 

This amendment would not 'be before this 
House today if the government hadn't taken 
that last step to permit two authorities to 
provide hydro within the local municipality. 
But that step has been taken. I suggest to 
the government and to the other members 
of the House that if we are going to have 
two authorities within a municipality, the 



2310 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



local hydro commission basically to serve the 
urban area di t!he municipality and then 
Ontario Hydro serving t^he rural section of 
the municipality, there should be a logical 
division between those two areas. 

I suggest to the parliamentary assistant 
that that logical division in the Niagara re- 
gion is not the urban boundaries which 
existed 10 years ago. There has been, as he 
must be aware, aldiough he lives quite a way 
from the Niagara district, an expansion of 
those urban boundaries. Incidentally, I'm 
dealing here with a situation that doesn't 
exist in my riding in the municipalities of 
Welland and Thorold because by this act the 
whole municipality is put within one com- 
mission. 

Mr. Haggerty: Is there not a problem in 
Thorold though? 

Mr. Swart: There may be a problem in 
Thorold but the amendment that I'm intro- 
ducing will not deal with that problem. In 
fact, the council of Thorold has determined 
that it will go ahead and have one hydro 
commission to serve the whole municipality. 

What this deals with is the problem that 
exists in Niagara-on-the-Lake, in Lincoln, in 
Grimsby, in West Lincoln and in Pelham. 
In at least four out of five of these municipal- 
ities, the old boundaries of the hydro com- 
mission, which were the old boundaries by 
and large of those small urban municipalities 
which were amalgamated with the neighbour- 
ing rural municipalities, no longer represent 
the urban boundaries in those municipalities. 

For instance, in west Lincoln the unincor- 
porated village of Smithville had a hydro 
commission to serve it before. It was a police 
village at that time. By this bill, the govern- 
ment has re-established the same boundary 
area, but four new subdivisions which had 
been built at that time continue as the old 
urban area of Smithville and they will be 
left on the rural hydro system where rates 
will be 10, 20 or 30 per cent more than those 
within the municipal hydro commission 
boundaries. 

It is so absurd, in fact, that half of one 
subdivision there will be served by the West 
Lincoln Hydro-Electric Commission and the 
other half will be served by rural Hydro. A 
population of about 700 in the Smithville 
lu-ban service area of West Lincoln will be 
servedi by rural Hydro. 

The situation is very similar in Pelham, 
where about one quarter of the population 
around the old village of Fonthill— again in 
a contiguous urban area— wiU be left in the 
rural Hydro system, yet their neighbours 
right across the street will be paying the 
lower urban hydro commission rates. 



The same holds true in Niagara-on-the- 
Lake. In fact, the member for Lincoln is now 
here and, although he does not represent 
Niagara-on-the-Lake, he represents three of 
the other municipalities where there is con- 
cern. In Niagara-on-the-Lake they have 
officially requested that the subdivision area 
of Mississauga Beach be included within the 
Niagara-on-the-Lake Hydro-Electric Commis- 
sion boundary. This, of course, will prevent 
that. 

Grimsby is in much the same situation; 
there has been substantial growth outsidb the 
old urban municipality of Grimsby, and that 
contiguous urban area should be taken into 
the new hydro commision. 

I would think that the government, repre- 
sented here today by the parliamentary assist- 
ant, the member for Durham West, in a bill 
which in eflFect is establishing hydro com- 
missions, would want to establish them on 
realistic boundaries. When he rises to speak 
on this, I hope he will explain what he ex- 
pects to happen in the future with regard to 
these areas. He must be aware that the 
Niagara Peninsula, like much of the rest of 
Ontario, is not growing at the rate at which 
it grew previously. He must be aware that 
some of the municipalities, such as the Smith- 
ville area, have very real limits on how far 
they can grow because of the services which 
can and cannot be provided in that area. He 
must also know that in some of those munic- 
ipalities, the West Lincoln area in this cen- 
tury, and perhaps for many decades after 
that, it is imlikely that the municipality will 
be able to take over the whole hydto system, 
which is an option provided in this bill. 

The alternative, unless my amendment 
carries, is that we must carry on with half 
of the urban area being served by the West 
Lincoln Hydro-Electric Commission, a munic- 
ipal commission, and the other half of that 
contiguous urban area, inside the same urban 
service area, being served by Ontario Hydro's 
rural system. 

I suggest to the government that it makes 
no sense whatsoever to have those kinds of 
conditions existing when a bill is now before 
us to establish hydro commissions. 

I also say to the parliamentary assistant 
that the reason given in the debate on second 
reading of this bill for not extending these 
boundaries almost amounts to blackmail 
against the municipality and totally mis- 
represents what I said in this House at that 
time. 
[4:15] 

After I spoke, in his reply he said: "I 
think it's also fair to say that there's no doubt, 
leaving it this way with the existing boun- 



MAY 29, 1979 



2311 



daries with the ultimate choice— and the 
choice will be local to expand to the 
boundaries of the municipahty— yes, it would 
ultimately put, I would think, some pressures 
on the council to look at that, and possibly 
ultimately make a decision. But if they always 
knew that they could just expand it another 
street or two would they really ever take on 
that task and take on that responsibility? No, 
they would turn around and blame it all on 
Ontario Hydro for raising their rate levels 
higher than the local percentage increases, 
which as I mentioned in terms of numbers 
has to be inevitable" 

First of all, he infers that my amendment 
which I had spoken to would give the munic- 
ipality the right at any time to take in 
another street or two, and of course that is 
not the case. Once this bill is passed and once 
my amendment is passed, as the parha- 
mentary assistant well knows, there will be 
no further changes in those boundaries un- 
less this government, or the government 
that happens to sit here at that time, brings 
in further amendments. There will be no 
changes. This is not the old system. All we're 
proposing here is we set realistic boundaries 
at this time on those hydro commissions 
within the basically rural municipalities. 

Second, when he states that he thinks it 
would put some pressures on councils to look 
at that and possibly ultimately make a de- 
cision, ultimately make the decision to go 
out to the limits of their boundaries, he must 
be aware that several of these municipalities 
will never get to that state, at least in 
this century, and as I have said before per- 
haps not for many decades after. Would the 
honourable member suggesrt— does he know 
the Smithville area— how many decades he 
would think it would be before that munic- 
ipality could afford to take in all the rural 
hydro systems? I don't know whether the 
honourable member has looked at this re- 
port, but if he looks at it and reads the 
estimates of the costs to that municipality if 
it did that, where rates would have to in- 
crease by 30 or 40 per cent even above the 
rural hydro rates, he must be aware that 
they cannot possibly do that anytime in the 
foreseeable futiure. With the slower popula- 
tion growth generally, this is going to be 
true of all of those five municipalities within 
the Niagara region. 

So I just say to the parliamentary assistant, 
and to the members on my right, that it 
does make a lot of sense if we are establish- 
ing, within a rural municipality, a commis- 
sion to service the urban area that it should 
take in all of the urban area as it exists 
today, not just half of it or two thirds of it. 



Certainly if we were establishing new com- 
missions now and there were no commissions 
in existence, he wouldn't think of drawing 
the lines where he is drawing them under 
this bill. He couldn't possibly think of doing 
that. He would take a reahstic look at it, 
consult with the municipalities and say: 
"What portion of your municipality should 
be within that hydro commission boundary?" 

I say there are going to be real problems 
and real resentment if this amendment is not 
passed, because people who have looked 
forward to getting within those urban hydro 
serviced areas when the freeze was lifted, 
now find they are going to be left out, now 
find their rates will continue to be 20 or 30 
per cent higher than those across the street 
from them; even though they are paying 
the same sewer rates and the same water 
rates and they have curbs and gutters and 
are totally urbanized for all other purposes. 
They are still going to be connected to the 
rural hydro. 

The final point, Mr. Chairman, a final 
argument that I want to make for this, is 
that it makes eminent sense not to set up 
two systems side by side, two full systems 
to serve an urban area which is divided. 
It makes good, economic sense to have one 
transformer station, one system serving that 
area. So I would ask the members to give 
favourable consideration to an amendment 
which simply gives the option to those five 
municipalities to take a look at the urban 
areas within their municipalities and see 
what is the logical hydro service area for 
each municipality. 

There's no compulsion in my amendment, 
as you will recognize. They can determine, if 
they wish, to stay with the old area. I 
suggest none of them will, and that's one 
reason they should be consulted. But it 
gives them the option to stay with the old 
area, to move out to what is a reasonable 
service area or to take in the whole munic- 
ipality. 

I am thoroughly convinced this is what the 
municipality wants there. I am thoroughly 
convinced it makes sense. I am thoroughly 
convinced that when the government has 
backed down on the position it has, that it 
is going to allow two authorities to provide 
hydro within one municipality, there should 
be some regional division of the area that 
is going to be served, not the rural hydro 
serving a rural area plus half the urban 
area and then the urban hydro commission 
just half that urban area. It makes no sense 
whatsoever and that's the reason there's 
an amendment before you to make a logical 
division in those five municipalities. 



2312 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to 
address myself to the amendment proposed 
by the member for Welland-Thorold. The 
new section included is section (c) and I 
make reference to section 17(a). The only 
change I see in this amendment is that under 
(a) it is "may direct the commission estab- 
lished by section 2 in respect of the munic- 
ipality to commence on a day specified by 
the bylaw distribution and supply of power 
in all areas of the municipality." The amend- 
ment that has been proposed is "may direct 
before the first day of October, 1979, a 
commission established by section 2 in respect 
of municipalities to commence on the day 
specified in the bylaw the distributions and 
supply of power in some areas of the 
municipality." 

There may be a difference there, but the 
intent of the bill could indicate we want 
the regional reconstruction of Hydro there 
to remain status quo. I suggest to the mem- 
ber for Welland-Thorold perhaps he should 
move an amendment in reference to the ex- 
planatory note that the customers in Wain- 
fleet will continue to be served by Ontario 
Hydro until the council of the township of 
Wainfleet establish a hydro-electric com- 
mission for the township. Until the commis- 
sion is established, that council is required 
to review the distribution and supply of 
power and the township at least once every 
three years. I suppose there are difiBculties 
in a number of municipalities that have been 
mentioned— Grimsby, Lincoln, Niagara-on- 
the-Lake, Pelham; perhaps there are even 
other areas— West Lincoln for example, 
there is a problem. 

I think it was mentioned in one of our 
discussions with the minister in Thorold 
where there may be some difficulties in ex- 
tending the hydro utilities out into the rural 
areas. That could cause considerable cost, 
providing that service out there by the local 
utility. 

I would go along with an amendment io 
the whole bill in the sense that if you are 
going to move in that direction, then perhaps 
we need further assessment and review of 
the situation in these outlying areas. I don't 
tlhink the bill should be lield up on the basis 
that this amendment is going to solve the 
problems. After all, if you look at the pur- 
pose of regional government it is to enable 
municipalities to become more viable. 

I suggest if we are going to use that term 
"more viable," then municipalities should be 
able to handle the adjustment as it relates to 
restructuring hydro utilities in the community. 
Sure, it is going to be an additional cost to 
many customers in these areas. If you go 



back to the establishment of regional gov- 
ernment, Mr. Chairman, we had what v/as 
called proposed uniformity in water and 
sewer rates— that does not take place because 
a different cost is assessed to each munic- 
ipality and cost may vary at a considerable 
charge to that locality. 

No matter how we move into restructuring 
hydro-electric utilities within the region as 
proposed under this bill, we are not going 
to have uniformity in the cost of electrical 
energy to the customers because there is ^ 
different need, a different environment, from 
one municipality to another. We will never 
attain that goal under a single tier or under 
the proposal in this bill that it remain at 
the local municipality level. 

I am not quite clear on "some areas." I 
think the mover of the amendment should 
spell out just what municipalities he is dis- 
cussing under "some areas." "Some areas" 
could refer to almost every municipality be- 
cause it means there is going to be an addi- 
tional cost to these areas. 

As I discussed in die original debate, in the 
second stage of the debate here, I was con- 
cerned about the cost of adjustment, the 
capital debt cost to these municipalities. 
There are some cases where municipalities 
may have difficulty in financing the scheme. I 
look to the member's assistance there. Per- 
haps this is one area we should be taking a 
close look at, whether some of these muni- 
cipalities can afford the change from rural 
Ontario Hydro to a public utility hydro 
commission. I suggest they may run into 
some difficulties but I don't think it is any 
reason that the bill should not be moved 
forward. Maybe the member for Welland- 
Thorold will consider including these munic- 
ipalities with the township of Wainfleet 
which was excluded from this particular 
bill pending review in one or two or three 
years. Maybe we should be looking at that 
as a possible solution if these municipalities 
are going to be severely hit on cost. 

I don't like to see customers charged too 
much for the use of hydro-electricity in the 
aiea. My secretary in Toronto tells me 
that her Toronto bfll is similar to mine in 
rural Sherkston. I am a customer of Ontario 
Hydro and there isn't much difference be- 
tween the cost df my hydro and the cost to 
some hydro users in Metropolitan Toronto. 
I wish the member would be more specific 
as to the meaning of "some areas." 

It is unfortunate that perhaps through poor 
planning over the past number of years, we 
have allowed urban sprawl to take place in 
a number of communities. It has happened 
in almost every community within the re- 



MAY 29, 1979 



2313 



gion. Through that type of planning, or no 
planning at all, we have to suffer the cost 
today; somebody has to bear the cost, par- 
ticularly that municipality, I guess, until the 
matter can be corrected. 

So I would like to have further explana- 
tion of Just what the member means by 
"some areas" of municipalities. Does he wis/h 
it to remain as status quo? Are we going 
to have two hydro commissions in a munic- 
ipality, sudh as the local utility and 
Ontario Hydro, continuing with their pres- 
ent program? I interpret this amendment to 
mean it would maintain the status quo. 

[4:30] 

Mr. Hall: Mr. Chairman, I spoke at length 
on my opposition to the principle of this bill 
on second reading. I do not intend to go 
over old ground again. The member for 
Welland-Thorold has proposed an amendment 
to the bill which is a substantial amend- 
ment. It is my impression he supported the 
bill in principle when it was put forth, but 
now wishes to make a major change in it. 

In my earlier comments I said would' it 
not be more fair to provide an option to local 
municipalities to adjust local boundaries. I 
certainly felt there was some logic in the 
member's comments along this line and I 
share some of that logic, bearing in mind 
boundaries and these commissions were frozen 
many years ago and a lot has happened since 
that time. Yet, in the bill as proposed we are 
sticking either to the option of the boundaries 
that existed prior to the 1970 regional govern- 
ment or, indeed, a commission which would 
take over the whole of any given municipality. 

For those in the House who do not see the 
import of this, if they are not in a con- 
stituency of a regional nature, municipalities 
have of course grown tremendtously in size 
and they are not the same municipalities to 
any extent they were in 1970. Therefore, they 
are not being given very good options under 
this bill, as was mentioned in the discussion 
on second reading. 

I feel the small municipalities and the Hydro 
restructuring committee tried to identify this 
problem and, without being parochial, finally 
opted for a two-county system accepting a 
regional system on which the government 
nevertheless turned its back. I made it quite 
clear I feel an injustice has been done to the 
smaller municipalities which, because of 
many constraints placed upon them in the 
last 10 years, including a higher standard for 
water and sewers, and urban area boundaries 
in the Niagara region, even if they were 
growth minded, do not have the options for 
growth they had prior to regional government 



and when they were able to fund their own 
sewage and water systems which now have 
to be funded, processed, approved, adminis- 
tered and owned' by the region. 

While I say I feel badly for the rural areas 
in my riding, it disturbs me to want to be a 
part of making things worse for rural areas 
all over Ontario by setting a precedent which 
I fear might be set here and held up for dis- 
play, if indeed, the member for Welland- 
Thorold had his amendment carried. Actually, 
in the final analysis, maybe the only fair way 
to treat such a basic commodity would be to 
have equal rates all over Ontario for Ontario 
Hydro, as we now try to do with heating 
oil and gasoline. We do this by licence breaks 
and by any means we can, so basic essentials 
such as these are provided fairly and at equit- 
able cost to everyone in the province. 

The government obviously picks up the 
tab for a lot of these special costs. They 
seem to have a great difiiculty making the 
mental leap of providing this basic service 
on an equal cost to everyone in the province. 
The government, in my view, particularly in 
regional Niagara, has abandoned its concepts 
and principles of broad sharing of basic costs 
over a large area for the benefit of all. 

As I pointed out earlier, the small extra 
cost it would have meant to the urban areas 
in Niagara to have permitted' a regional 
structure would not have amounted to much. 
But the burden placed on the smaller munic- 
ipalities as a result of this two-tier setup is 
substantial in the areas with less income, 
greater distances to cover, and all sorts of 
difficult municipal costs to face in this time. 

I would like to see a whole redressing of 
this matter. I think Ontario Hydro, to its 
credit, in the earlier years recognized that 
electricity was so basic it should be available 
to all. Indeed, great efiForts have been made 
to have it made available to all. We dbn't 
give cheaper power just because you are 
close to a hydro-electric site, or because you 
are near to a nuclear site. The basic rate 
structure across the province is, at least, 
equalized now. I suggest that hydro is in the 
category of those other items that are indeed 
needed to keep us warm and to permit us to 
travel in this province. 

Electrical energy may be a much more im- 
portant aspect of travelling in this province 
as the electric car becomes a reality in five, 
10 or 15 years from now. At that time, will 
the government say that the fellow who lives 
in a small town should have to pay three 
times as much to run his automobile as the 
person who lives in a city? 

There is not equality in this bill, and there- 
fore I am not happy with it. However, I 



2314 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



don't want to make it any worse for the rural 
areas than it already is, because of the con- 
cern for areas that have not faced restructur- 
ing, and for obviously what would happen 
under the member's amendment where one 
community after another would reach out and 
seize land, to the detriment of the rural areas 
surrounding it. 

For my part, I think the whole thing has 
been poorly handled but I can't support the 
amendment for broader reasons. 

Mr. Kerrio: I have to think that when we 
talk hydro, Niagara Falls might immediately 
come to mind. Historically, one of the major 
power plants in North America, perhaps in 
the world, was at Niagara Falls. While some 
members might discuss and debate the equal- 
ity of costs to various people, when Hydro 
was first structured the rates were much 
lower in those areas immediately surrounding 
the generating plants in Niagara Falls, On- 
tario, and in Niagara Falls, New York. 

There was, therefore, a great influx of in- 
dustry to those areas, which meant many job 
opportunities as well as other opportimities. 
But, by the same token, the people in the 
area were subject to much inconvenience, 
with the canal cutting right through the 
centre of the city, and with other tax prob- 
lems on very, very costly land used by On- 
tario Hydro. 

I am bringing these matters into focus, 
because it becomes very obvious that when 
you equalize the rates and leave those people 
in a given area with all of those incon- 
veniences, while the rates may be one thing, 
if you equalize it right across the province 
there are those people who would sufi^er the 
consequences of all the inconveniences in 
one locale. 

I don't know if we could ever talk about 
having equalized rates across the province. 
One way or another, there will be some di- 
gression from proper equalization of the 
rates. It also may lead to the problem gov- 
ernments are having, and that is, when one 
tries to be all things to all people it is going 
to cost us more to do everything we do in 
everyday life. While on the one hand it might 
be very important that we try to equalize 
the rates across the province, there may be 
some impracticalities. 

There are those people who prefer to be 
living out in rural areas — and we aU know it 
costs more money to string lines to take 
power out there. If those people have some 
advantages we do not have in the city, it 
may not be worth our attempting to make 
such equalization of rates that we would 
give all these services to those people who 
move out from centralized areas, because in 



that way sewers, water, electricity, whatever 
one mentions, could cost fourfold or five- 
fold, and ultimately we would not have an 
equalization of rates; we would have the 
people in the central area subsidizing those 
people who want to live that nice life in the 
country. Therefore, I am not going to sup- 
port the amendment to the bill. 

I would like also to suggest that it is 
quite obvious there are those from different 
parts of t!he peninsula itself who, for different 
reasons, look at the bill through different 
eyes. I, for one, had proposed an amendment, 
which had been supported by the city of 
Niagara Falls, both the rural area and the 
urban area. I had brought that support here 
for an amendment. 

Mr. Chairman: But that amendment is not 
before the committee. 

Mr. Kerrio: Subsequently, the city has 
seen fit to change and now would support 
the bill as it stands. I thought I should say 
that so the Chairman would understand that 
I am talking to the bill and to the amend- 
ment. 

In any event, I would like to read into 
the record one thing that was mentioned by 
the member for Welland-Thorold on May 1. 
He said, at page 1484 of Hansard: "Regard- 
less of whether amendments are adopted in 
the House in the committee stage or what- 
ever takes place, we have to pass this bill 
this spring and get on with the job, regard- 
less of how the structure is set up." To ex- 
pedite that kind of thinking, we would be 
very wise not to support this amendment 
and to get on with passing of the bill. 

Mr. Chairman: The member for Erie asked 
for clarification of one word. I think the 
word was "some." I am sure the member for 
Welland-Thorold could do that briefly. 

Mr. Swart: I can, Mr. Chairman. I would 
have thought the amendment was fairly clear. 
The word "some," in "some areas," leaves 
the decision with the municipality as to 
which areas they would attach to the hydro 
commission boundaries. Normally, we would 
expect that this would be the urban area, 
which is now in rural Hydro, surrounding 
the urban area served by the commission. 
But that would be left up to the local mu- 
nicipality to determine. 

Just one final word: I would point out that 
this is all subject to the approval of Ontario 
Hydro, as provided in the first part of this 
bill. 

Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate 
generally the support received from various 
parts of the House. I would like to touch 
upon and respond to some of the points made 



MAY 29, 1979 



2315 



by the member for Welland-Thorold in his 
proposed amendment. 

As I think everybody knows, and as was 
discussed quite widely in second reading of 
this bill, the amendment is completely con- 
trary to the principles of restructuring. 

As we have already heard in this discus- 
sion and debate today and in the discussion 
and debate on second reading, there are ar- 
guments on both sides as to whether restruc- 
turing should have taken place on a regional 
basis. I think it is safe and probably fairly 
accurate to say that from a straight rational, 
economic point of view a regional utility was 
probably the best. 

Having said that— and some people did 
recognize and support that view— it was the 
government's feelings, which I would sug- 
gest was strongly supported by many mem- 
bers opposite as well as many members on 
this side, that stretching regionalization that 
one step further was not acceptable to most 
of the elected representatives, whether they 
were provincial or municipal representatives, 
or to the people they represented. On that 
basis, the government changed the restruc- 
turing guidelines to accommodate lower-tier 
restructuring, which is accommodated and 
reflected in Bill 29, which is before us today. 

As for the particular amendment before 
the House, the member for Welland-Thorold 
suggest they have a shot at this only once; 
they may or may not do anything. We're 
only taking about five municipahties and it's 
neither here nor there. 
[4:45] 

I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman 
and honourable members, that that's not 
really the point and I think we all recognize 
it. If it were allowed in this particular piece 
of legislation, even on a once-only basis as 
put forward by the member, we would have 
very great diflBculty denying that same re- 
quest if it came forward from the multiplicity 
of municipalities in this province, both within 
regional areas as well as outside regional 
areas, which now have a pubHc utilities 
commission. 

I don't know what justification we could 
use to say "No, we did it for a few municipali- 
ties in Niagara, but they're a little different 
because the member for Welland-Thorold 
said they were a little diflFerent, and we 
can't do it for you." That's not logical at all. 

I think the member made some reference 
to points I made on second reading. I stand 
behind those statements. I won't make them 
again. They've already been summarized and 
read into the record for a second time. But 
he did make some reference to "blackmail" 
to the municipahties— to the municipal coun- 



cil at some future point in time, as a mat- 
ter of fact in three-year intervals, looking 
to the economics, to the justification, to the 
feasibility of expanding their then-contained 
area to their municipal boundary. That's not 
blackmail, it's protection for the rural hydro 
users, both then and for the future. If at 
some point in time the municipal council sees 
that it is feasible, economically and other- 
wise, to expand to their municipal boun- 
daries, they will do so. 

Mr. Swart: What you're saying is, we 
won't let you have it the way you want it; 
you've got to take it the way we want it or 
nothing. 

Mr. Ashe: It's amazing, Mr. Chairman, 
that the member didn't make reference to 
another municipality he represents, the 
municipality of Thorold. He approached 
that municipal council and said, "I've got an 
amendment here that might serve your pur- 
poses too. Perhaps you don't want to expand 
to your boundaries." I'm very pleased to say 
that that municipal council expressed the 
view that they were representing a com- 
munity and wanted to create interest from 
boundary to boundary within their juris- 
diction. 

Mr. Swart: They felt they could afi^ord it 
but some of these others can't. 

Mr. Ashe: They indicated to the member 
that they were quite aware of the economics 
involved and were standing by their original 
decision, which I would suggest to him was 
a very fair and a very equitable one. 

Mr. Kerrio: Who represents that area? 

Mr. Ashe: It received pretty fair cover- 
age in the news media and I hope that all 
residents in that area saw what their local 
council decided- 
Mr. Haggerty: They wanted a single tier. 

Mr. Ashe: — and what their local member 
was suggesting. 

Mr. Kerrio: Do they have a member down 
there? 

Mr. Ashe: Some would say so. 

The thing that makes this particular amend- 
ment impractical and, in fact, impossible, has 
already been alluded to and touched on very 
eloquently by many of the members opposite. 
The member is talking about load skimming. 
Ultimately, he's talking about further finan- 
cial pressures on the remaining Ontario Hydro 
customers throughout the province. Keeping 
in mind his argument thalt we're only talking 
about a few municipalities, which I hope I've 
discussed adequately, this is impossible. We 
couldn't do that, because eventually we would 
end up with all 'the utilities expanding their 



2316 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



boundaries to suit their convenience, leaving 
the rest of the system throughout parts of 
Ontario exceedingly on a growing costly basis. 

Mr. Swart: Give the urban diwellers the 
same as everybody else gets. 

Mr. Ashe: We all would be concerned! if 
that could or did happen, but it shouldn't 
happen and won't be allowed to happen. 

The other member who took part in the 
debate, the members for Erie, Lincoln and 
Niagara Falls, discussed both sides of these 
issues. We've heard eloquent argument on' 
both sides relative to regionalization versus 
local restrudturing. We 'heard about the vari- 
ous equalities, both wiays, of having one rate 
across the province and so having a different 
rate close to the source of generation. There 
is no easy answer, as I think all members 
would quite readily agree. 

Basically, three different kinds of rates 
affect residential consumers. There is ithe 
wholesale rate to the utilities which then 
varies, diepending on the level of service, 
municipality to municipality; then througih- 
out the rest of Onltario there are the two 
levels of what are known as rural hydro rates. 

Granted, some of those so-referred-to rural 
areas are indeed not rural areas; I do not 
think anybody is trying to suggest that they 
are. What we are saying is that w'hen people 
move into those areas— and I think this was 
alluded to by one of the honourable members 
opposite— they know some of the pluses andl 
minuses of choosing where to reside. 

One of the pluses is the amenities that are 
there: the geography, Ithe larger lots and wthat 
have you. One of the negatives in a particular 
municipality may be a higher hydro rate. I 
hai>pen to be one of those who pays a hi^er 
hydro rate, I may say, ini a very urbanized 
area. But I knew what it was when we went 
there. The particular municipality where I 
live is prepared to go the full route in creat- 
ing a utility commission from boundary to 
boundary, because it is economically possible 
to do so. 

I hope I have covered, at least to some 
degree, most of the points that were made. 
Again, I hope all members of the committee 
will vote againsit this particular amendment, 
because it would make a farce of not only 
this piece of legislation but also the future 
of the public utiHties commissions, the boim- 
daries and service areas of those commissions 
and, more importantly, the consumers in the 
province who are served by Onltario Hydro. 
It would just make an impossible situation. 

Mr. Deputy Chairman: All those in favour 
of Mr. Swart's amendment to section 4 will 
please say "aye." 



All those opposed will please say "nay." 
In my opinion the nays have it. 
Amendment stacked. 
iSections 5 to 11, inclusive, agreed Ito. 

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT 

Consideration of Bill 25, An Act to amend 
the Labour Relations Act. 

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I have one 
or two brief remarks I would like to make 
before we commence clause-by-clause review 
of the bill. 

I would remind members that since the 
inception of the Labour Relations Adt, and 
indeed of legislated labour law in this prov- 
ince, section 63 in particular has taken away 
the legal right of parties to a contract to 
withdraw services. In addition to that, under 
section 37(2), we have intervened and re- 
quired that the parties shall have a grievance 
arbitration procedure within their collective 
agreements. Indeed, we have even specified 
that, if none is included in th^t agreement, 
a model grievance arbitration procedure shall 
be considered to be part of any collective 
agreement. 

It therefore behooves us to follow the 
course of events and the effectiveness of thalt 
interventionist act. If we feel there is any 
suggestion of disrepute falling upon the griev- 
ance arbitration procedure, it is my view that 
we have an obHgaltion to endeavour to cor- 
rect it so that the procedure sets out to do 
what it was originally intended to do, and 
that it sets out to do what it was originally 
intended to do, and that it sets out to do 
without tmdue delay or undue cost. 

By intervening with the proposed legisla- 
tion that we have introduced today, that is 
not say there are not good grievance arbitra- 
tion procedures in many collective agree- 
ments. I say in all candour to members of the 
House that I feel very strongly that those 
good and sound grievance arbitration proce- 
dures that exist in many collective agreements 
will not be changed by the introduction of 
this bill. Rather, it will encourage the parties 
to improve existing agreements that in our 
view are not resxx>nding satisfactorily to the 
needs that exist in the industrial society. 
During the course of the procedures today, 
I will be introducing two or three amend- 
ments and on those occasions I'd like to 
speak to them. 

Mr. Van Home: In response to the minis- 
ter's comments and also in deference to some 
predecessors from my party who were in- 
volved in the initial discussion of the collec- 
tive bargaining process here in Ontario— and 
I go bade a few decades When I say that— 



MAY 29, 1979 



2317 



I would like to make some observations about 
this bill. I do so under the following head- 
ings: Past history; the perceived need; the 
events of the last month or so; and reference 
to some amendments that our party would 
like to put forward. 

I don't think there is any question— and 
I'll repeat the comment I made on April 24 
—that our party is in general agreement with 
tfhe theme which supports the need for an 
arbitration process that is good for all sec- 
tions of the labour movement. There is no 
quarrel with that. In so far as past history 
is concerned, I indicated in my first state- 
ment that our party was very involved with 
the introduction of legislation encouraging 
collective bargaining in Ontario with the 
Collective Bargaining Act of 1943. We are 
proud of that involvement and proud of what 
our predecessors did. 

As for the perceived need, I have not seen 
or heard any ground swell of requests from 
the labour field. Rather, this bill was brought 
to us by a ministry which, in my view, is 
intervening in the process to a point where 
it is almost (Obstructing the process. We 
weren't apprised of any great demand from 
those smaller unions or those people who 
were adversely affected by tfhe Labour Rela- 
tions Act as it now stands. So I would ques- 
tion the perceived need for this legislation. 

The third point I would like to make is 
that during this past month or six weeks we 
have seen some interesting happenings. First, 
the bill was introduced; second, there was an 
indication that perhaps a second reading and 
no committee involvement would happen as 
a matter of routine, if all parties concurred. 

As I indicated earlier in April, I was not 
that well versed in labour matters and deter- 
mined to seek some input from professionals, 
i.e., from arbitrators, from senior manage- 
ment people, from professionals in the schools 
of law, and, not last or least, from those 
people involved in the labour movement, that 
is, in the ranks and at the administrative 
level. 

We did inquire and, in reply, we got some 
20 answers, either written or over the phone, 
indicating that nobody felt this legislation 
was needed. When I made reference to this 
on second reading, there was some criticism 
put my way from both of the other parties. 
I would submit to them that between that 
time and now I have sought more support 
information that would help to convince me 
that this is good legislation. To this point, I 
have received only two indications that this 
legislation is very sorely needed. On the other 
hand, I have received an additional 18 com- 
munications, making a total of some 38 com- 



munications, suggesting that generally speak- 
ing. Bill 25 is not needed. 

[5:00] 

I provide that as information to the 
members. I am not using it necessarily to 
build a strong case against the legislation. 
It's worth noting that the apparent intent 
of this bill, expressed by the minister in the 
statement he made when the legislation was 
introduced, to speed up the process and to 
reduce the cost— those are the two main 
themes he presented to us— is good; those 
are good intentions. We can't quarrel with 
them. But the majority of people who have 
contacted me and with whom I have spoken 
in the labour negotiation business, both in 
management and labour, have indicated 
pretty strongly that they worked hard to 
come up with an agreement or agreements 
over the years, that they understand each 
other and are prepared to work out their 
problems themselves. They perceive Bill 25, 
in spite of its good intentions, to be further 
governmental intrusion. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I repeat what I said 
in the beginning; while our party and I 
personally agree in principle that arbitration 
be speeded up and that costs be reduced, we 
seriously question further intrusion and 
therefore will make an amendment or amend- 
ments to try to change this bill to ac- 
commodate those feelings. 

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Will you put the 
first amendment? Actually, we are not debat- 
ing the principle of the bill here as I be- 
lieve you have just been doing. Perhaps I 
should have intervened earlier, but 1 under- 
stand you have an amendment on section 1. 
Would you please put that amendment? 

Mr. Van Home: I wasn't sure, Mr. Chair- 
man, if the amendments that were going- 
Mr. Deputy Chairman: May I just find out 
the question being raised by the member 
for Hamilton East? 

Mr. Mackenzie: I am wondering on pro- 
cedures inasmuch as the minister has had 
brief comments and so has the Liberal critic 
—is that the intent? Because if it is, there are 
a few words I want to say on the bill as well. 
I don't think you can have two of them 
and cut off the third. 

Mr. Deputy Chairman: You are quite right 
and I will not do so. I thought the minister 
was going to make a few comments about 
the amendments he wished to make and I 
have certainly allowed the member for Lon- 
don North to proceed and, in fairness, I must 
allow you the same privilege— I hope not for 
the same amount of time. 



2318 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, under section 
1 of the Labour Relations Act I think you 
have a fair amount of leeway in any event 
and I certainly welcome this bill as a posi- 
tive step in the right direction. I would have 
preferred the government to go all the way 
and adopt the construction union grievance 
procedures as in section 112a and I don't 
think it would have been as costly as the 
minister seems to feel. 

It is interesting to note that once that 
procedure was established, there was no 
great increase in the number of cases han- 
dled under 112a. Indeed, figures from the 
deputy minister indicate that in 1976-77 
there were 273 cases; in 1977-78, 264; in 
1978-79, 238. So the argument that we 
would see a tremendous increase in cases 
just didn't come about. However, we are 
not getting 112a so I think Bill 25 is the 
best thing we can hope for, hopefully with 
some very minor changes. 

It's useful, in view of the long wait for this 
legislation and in view of the rather frantic 
and often misleading opposition to the bill,, 
to go briefly into why this bill and the 
particular sections in it are before us. 

Under the current system of grievance 
arbitration in Ontario, it is true that some 
unions have worked out a relatively good 
system, but many of them have not— and jus- 
tice delayed is justice denied. Justice delayed 
also leads to increased tensions on the shop 
floor and these, in turn, lead to further 
grievances. If one sees the pile-up of griev- 
ances in some of the major contract nego- 
tiations, in this province, one will know 
why this kind of legislation is desperately 
needed. 

To use only the example that I am 
most aware of— and there are any number 
of figures; I am not sure exactly who my 
friend from the Liberal Party was talking 
to when he said there was no need for a 
single arbitrator in 345 cases presented— 
there was an industrial inquiry commission 
on arbitration for the very purpose of deal- 
ing with complaints of the labour movement. 
In my own union, the Steelworkers, the 
time from the date of the grievance to the 
award, for a single arbitrator, has been 
averaging 187 days, with the range being 
from 58 to 398 days; for a board it is 335 
days, with the range being from 27 to 1,408 
days; the overall average is 317 days. In 
discharge cases, 15 per cent of all appeals 
were decided in six months, 43 per cent took 
six months to one year, and 41 per cent took 
more than a year. 

The chances of a worker's reinstatement 
drop sharply the longer the time for the 



arbitration. Even the most cynical anti- 
labour person knows that the person who 
suffers more in a discharge case is the 
worker who has bills to pay, family to sup- 
port and a house to keep; not the corpora- 
tion that is involved. There are many more 
figures, but we do not need to go into them. 

Apart from the delays, there is the ques- 
tion of costs— and I wish that had been out- 
lined a little more cleariy in the discussions 
we have had. If you are lucky, you might 
deal in the $350 to $400 range-and that is 
if you are very lucky; in fact, $800 to $1,000 
or $1,100 a day is more likely the cost. 

There is no justice, even for small locals 
of a major union, if they cannot carry out 
their basic function of protecting the worker 
and seeing that he gets his day in court 
because they simply cannot afford the cost. 
I have had cases brought to me on that 
count; I do not know who is talking to my 
friend in the Liberal Party. 

The arbitration system was designed as a 
fair replacement for the strike as no-strike 
provisions were made mandatory in collective 
agreements in Ontario. If we were going to 
have this, a need for means of resolving dis- 
putes was necessary as well as a means of 
justice in the work place, for the worker on 
the job. 

The original intent and the specific provi- 
sions of this bill were that the arbitration 
system should be a relatively cheap, quidk, 
simple and accessible means of resolving 
disputes. In the present state of affairs, that 
is not happening. The byproduct of the arbi- 
tration system that has evolved is that the 
arbitrators and arbitration boards are gen- 
erally stating in lengthy details the reasons 
for the decision, often accompanied by a 
detailed review of the facts as well as the 
legal principles on which they base their 
conclusions. Dissents have been equally 
lengthy in many cases; the reasons for the 
dissents have often formed the basis for 
applications to the courts to quash or reverse 
the decisions. 

While it is true that arbitrators over the 
years have stated that awards have no bind- 
ing force on future arbitrations, the search 
for precedents was and is a constant one. 

The basic concept that the arbitration 
process would provide a quick, simple and 
accessible means of setthng disputes has 
been lost along the way in many cases. With 
more than 37 volumes of LACs now, we need 
more expertise and more costs just to com- 
pete in this particular field. 

All of this makes a mockery of the criti- 
cisms that we have been getting for this 
particular bill: the arguments that the bill 



MAY 29, 1979 



2319 



allows the collective bargaining process to be 
bypassed, thereby reducing its efficiency and 
leading to a deterioration in employee- 
employer relations and increased public ex- 
pense, or represents further government in- 
trusion into an area where private interests 
are best equipped to make and manage the 
situation. None of these arguments holds 
true; indeed, the reverse is probably the case 
in almost every case. 

One of the amendments 1 have seen— I do 
not know if the same one is being moved; 
we will get to it a httle later in the discus- 
sion—is based on the argument that the bill 
should be put forward only as an alternative 
that the parties may jointly agree to use as 
t!hey see fit. I do not know exactly where my 
Liberal colleague got the amendment, but he 
could find it in almost exactly those tenns in 
the brief from the mining association. 

I also know that, if that kind of an amend- 
ment went through, the people who would 
be hurt, who would bear the brunt of nego- 
tiated pressure to reject the bill, are the small 
locals, the people right now who need this 
kind of protection; and the real fight then 
would switch to that of trying to negotiate it 
into the legislation, and, boy, I can see the 
difficulties one would have in some cases 
like that. 

I note that some of the labour arbitrators 
argue that some of the delays are as a result 
of interplay between company and union. I 
think that is true. Unions have to bear part 
of the blame for some of the delays. But I 
can tell members from personal experience 
that in many cases it is because the time 
costs and formalities are themselves such a 
deterrent and, because they have had so 
many bitter experiences with the long delays 
and the costs in achieving justice that they 
hold up the grievance procedure in the hope 
of readhing some kind of a settlement with 
management without going the arbitration 
route. 

I think the briefs we are seeing avoid the 
fact that collective bargaining is an adver- 
sarial relationship and that at best a small 
local, even a small local within a big union, 
is not necessarily the match for a major com- 
pany. I found it amusing when I read in one 
of the briefs that one of the companies said 
the grievance procedure clauses should not 
be interfered with as they were finally 
acceptable after 25 years of negotiations. 
If it takes 25 years to arrive at an accep- 
table method <yf handling something as vital 
as a worker's grievance, then it bloody well 
should be interfered with. 

I trust that the minister will not delay in 
producing the fee structure, which I regret 



is not available. I also trust we will have an 
assurance that he is prepared to bring in 
amendments, say a year or 18 months down 
the road, if we find some provisions of this 
particular bill are not working properly. I 
also trust we will see some concrete programs 
to train and supply an additional quantity 
of arbitrators, which is going to be one of the 
concerns of the people who are dealing with 
the bill. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to say 
we have one very short amendment to sec- 
tion 37a, following subsection 7. We will 
deal with that when we reach that point in 
the biU. 

On section 1: 

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Van Home moves that 
section 37a(l) of the Labour Relations Act, 
as set out in section 1 of the bill, be 
amended by striking out "notwithstanding 
the arbitration provision in a collective agree- 
ment or deemed to be included in a collec- 
tive agreement under section 37" in the first, 
second and third lines and inserting in lieu 
thereof "except where a collective agreement 
states that this subsection does not apply." 

Mr. Van Home: I would say a few words 
on this and in doing so give at least a par- 
tial rebuttal to the New Democratic labour 
critic, the member for Hamilton East. He 
indicated he was not sure where an amend- 
ment of this nature might originate. I would 
submit that in searching around within our 
caucus discussion and with the assistance of 
our research people we were able to find 
that in legislation passed fairly recently in 
British Columbia — and I believe at the time 
there was a New Democratic Party involved 
with the government in British Columbia, so 
I am rather surprised the member is not 
familiar with this — section 96 does permit 
an opting-out process. 

In pursuing the legislation that exists in 
British Columbia, we were able to find out 
that the provision it has had in eflFect for 
the last five or six years has not caused too 
many problems, if any. On that ground alone, 
I think we are able to say there is a pre- 
cedent and that if we wanted to add to it 
the Ontario flavour, we could equally sup- 
port this kind of amendment. We therefore 
proposed this. 

I would add, in supporting the amend- 
ment, it is viewed by some that the inter- 
vention that is proposed under section 37, 
although it may be effective in the short run, 
could perhaps be damaging or not so effec- 
tive in the long run. 
[5:15] 

To refer to comments I made earlier about 
the process we have developed in Ontario, 



2320 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



the process of arriving at a satisfactory col- 
lective agreement wherein both sides are 
happy and both sides are prepared to work 
out their problems, I have to wonder if this 
kind of legislation we're looking at today 
won't have some adverse effect on both sides. 

The third question I have to ask is about 
the cost, if all parties to collective agree- 
ments across the province are going to have 
access to the new arbitration process which 
is really being suggested here. We obviously 
are going to have to have more and better 
trained arbitrators. How much is it going to 
cost? For openers, we don't even know how 
many there will be. It's pretty difficult to 
put a handle on the cost. 

In presenting a private member's bill last 
Thursday, a bill I thought about for two 
years — that is Bill 69 — I did take the liberty 
of looking through the library to find some 
evidence of compendium information on var- 
ious bills the government was bringing forth. 
In the case of this piece of legislation the 
compendium information consists of a variety 
of booklets of information — the Kelly report 
and other things. It's so bulky that only one 
was provided and it was found in the Clerk's 
office. 

In looking through that I didn't find any 
indication of how much this piece of legis- 
lation is going to cost the taxpayers of On- 
tario. There was no indication at all. Perhaps 
the minister could inform us, as he makes 
some replies to these comments, if any 
thought has been given to cost. 

In summary I would have to think the 
amendment that had been put forward should 
be acceptable. It does allow opting out and 
would, in my view, see that those parties 
who are content with the agreement they've 
been able to reach over the years or over 
this past year— those people who put their 
minds to the task— would be unencumbered 
by Bill 25 and we would then see Bill 25 
aoply to only those who would see it oither- 
wise as a process which might assist them. 

I would leave my comments at that point, 
hoping to hear in reply from the minister. 

Mr. Mackenzie: I'll be very brief. We 
intend to oppose this Liberal amendment. If 
the parties are content and can reach that 
kind of an agreement there's no reason why 
they can't continue with their present pro- 
cedures now. It's a right that's there if one 
of the parties feels aggrieved and feels it is 
not getting justice under the present system 
or feels it can't afford the expense of going 
through, if the parties are not able to reach 
agreement, the arbitration procedures and 
costs. 



I would like the right to opt out of a good 
number of pieces of legislation myself if I 
didn't like them. I think it's a very dangerous 
precedent. I think it has the effect really of 
gutting this bill. I think it's important that 
it's not supported. 

Mr. Bounsall: If I could make a very brief 
comment. This section is a permissive section 
any way. It's of the type you can have in a 
collective agreement where they may request 
the minister to go to a single arbitrator. I 
don't see that you need a clause allowing the 
parties to a collective agreement to opt out 
of something, which is a "may" request to 
the minister in any event. I would say it's 
a most unusual amendment in that sense be- 
cause the changes here are of a permissive 
nature anyway. As I understand it, an agree- 
ment needs to be reached by parties in aj)- 
proaching the minister asking for the single 
arbitrator, in any event. I don't see any 
sense of the opting out. 

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I just have 
a few brief remarks. 

I'd like to preface them by re-emphasizing 
what I said in my opening remarks for the 
member for London North who is chatting 
with that sterling fellow from Haldimand- 
Norfolk, or whatever it is. 

Mr. Roy: Great member. 

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Fine man. I appreciate 
some of the reasons he's inltroduced this 
amendment. I can understand some of the 
concerns some people have. But I'd like to 
assure 'him, as I mentioned in my opening 
remarks, that section 63 and section 37(2) 
already intervene in the collective bargaining 
process, first of all by requesting there shall 
not be any withdrawal of services dirring the 
term of the contract and, secondly, by re- 
questing there shall be a grievance arbitra- 
tion procedure in a collective agreement. If 
there isn't, it inserts a model one. Surely 
that's a firm example of intervention in the 
collective bargaining process to the most 
marked degree. 

What I've said today to you is because of 
that intervention, siurely, we have an obliga- 
tion to assess how the grievance arbitration 
procedure works. With the greatest of respect 
for the member, and he knows I have that 
for him, I would submit he is in error if he 
thinks there aren't problems out there. He is 
quite correct when he assumes many com- 
panies have grievance arbitration procedures 
that are working very well. Frankly, when 
they are working weU and they've been 
agreed upon by the parties, I for the Iffe of 
me cannot see why this bill, which provides 
a permissive alternative, will cause a bargain- 



MAY 29, 1979 



2321 



ing agent to change his directtion from the 
known pathway they've agreed upon to the 
unknown permissive pathway the minister 
has oflFered as an option. 

During that collective agreement they have 
worked on for whatever number of years, 
they've agreed upon an arbitrator; and they 
may have agreed upon a great variety of 
other things. Why would the bargaining 
agent, the same person, be put under such 
unusual pressure to accept a ministerial 
option which, as the member said, is per- 
missive that he would suddenly back out of 
something that they have negotiated freely 
and happily and with which everybody is 
pleased? I just don't follow that logic. I am 
firmly convinced those companies that have 
sound grievance arbitration procedures will 
not feel the eflFect or impact of this bill for 
one minute. If they do, then I would suggest 
it's time to get back to the bargaining table 
and renegotiate the grievance arbitration 
procedure. 

The member made some reference to some 
British Columbia legislation. I don't want to 
get into discussions about ithat because, 
frankly, if you're going to take a little excerpt 
from the British Columbia Labour Relations 
Act, I think one should review the whole act 
because there are a great variety of things 
in the labour act in British Columbia which 
I'd be pleased to discuss with the member 
at any time. To take one single section and 
say that's how they do it there, has to be 
taken in the context of the whole labour act. 

As to the cost, as I mentioned in the act, 
the question of fees will be settled by regula- 
tion. It will be settled after consultation and 
input from all interested parties; the legal 
profession, the arbitrators, the labom- move- 
ment, and management so we can endeavour 
to reach what is considered and agreed upon 
by all to be a fair and reasonable fee. As to 
the cost in terms of the government, clearly, 
that's the reason we chose this, rightly or 
wrongly. I think it's right not to get involved 
in the major pubhc expenditure for this sort 
of problem. That is a problem with which we 
feel that parties should deal. 

I can assure the member the costs presently 
involved in the Labour-Management Arbitra- 
tion Commission will virtually be the same, 
barring the actual final figures which, of 
course, can't be arrived upon until the costs 
are put to Management Board for review. 
This member and this House have my assur- 
ance the cost we now perceive will be very 
little above the present costs for the Labour- 
Management Arbitration Commission. 

As for the presence or absence of arbitra- 
tors, Mr. Justice Kelly made it very clear. 



and I've made it very clear we see it as a 
very important part of this legislation that we 
continue to have available the services of that 
well-trained group of arbitrators who present- 
ly exist in the system. Approximately 60 are 
already there. To say we are suddenly intro- 
ducing legislation which will confound a group 
of untrained people is really not fair. The 
member can go down to the Labour-Manage- 
ment Arbitration Commission today and re- 
view the names on the list of people who 
are arbitrators who have been selected by 
joint agreement between management and 
labour. They are a fine, outstanding, able 
group of people. I have heard of no fear I 
have heard of that I accept that there will 
be any dearth of able, talented people willing 
to continue to perform in the role of ar- 
bitrator. 

I must oppose the member's amendment 
because it robs the bill of its very guts. The 
essence of it is that if there is a good griev- 
ance arbitration procedtire in place now this 
bill will not interfere with it. If there isn't, 
then it will encourage the parties to bargain 
and get a better one. 

Mr. Van Home: I would go back to the 
question of cost for just a moment and dispute 
the minister's suggestion there will be vir- 
tually no additional cost. In so far as the 
arbitrators are concerned perhaps this might 
be so, but we are not really sure of that. You 
are guessing, and quite frankly I am guessing. 
Beyond that, in this legislation we see a new 
creature, that is the settlement officer. 

This is not speaking to the amendment, 
and if I am out of order I will gladly speak 
to it later, but we are talking about costs and 
they are related to this section. Did you in- 
tend, when you gave the answer that they 
would be the same, that the costs be related 
only to arbitrators, or are you talking about 
something else when you talk about settle- 
ment officers? Is there an additional cost 
there? You can answer that in due course 
but I think it is a valid point. 

You also suggest there are many, many, 
many, many— I don't know how many 
"manys" you threw into your statement— good 
agreements and many instances wherein this 
particular Bill 25 might not even be needed. 

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Several. 

Mr. Van Home: If everything is so good, 
you might ask the question why do we bother 
looking at this legislation in the first place? 
We have heard some arguments, but again 
expediency and cost are your answers. 

The question I put to you again is are you 
not interfering with the agreements that have 
presently been established? Are you not inter- 



2322 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



fering with the good relations that have ibeen 
developed! over the years through the honest 
efforts of those labour people who are repre- 
senting their fellow workers and the manage- 
ment people who are representing their com- 
pany? Are you not putting another avenue 
on stream for those people who may come 
along in the future? You are dealing with the 
present and the past, but I would like to take 
a look down the road to the future. Is there 
no possibility of some abuse in the nego- 
tiating process with this kind of legislation? 

Finally, I have to wonder when you ques- 
tion why we would bring this on stream, why 
there weren't public hearings by the Kelly 
commission. Submissions were made, granted, 
but there were no public hearings. 

When we deal with this bill it goes from 
second reading to committee of the whole 
House. I have to admit in the initial stages 
I thought this would be the best way of 
dealing with this legislation. Having received 
a fair bit of flak over it, I am wondering if 
it wouldn't have been good to have a hearing 
through standing committee, rather than com- 
mittee of the whole House, and let it all be 
put on the table. In fairness to both sides I 
don't think that has really happened. 

There is a suggestion too that this is sort 
of a pro-labour bill. I am not suggesting that 
I am not pro-labour, but I have to submit 
there are two sides in the negotiating process. 
I am sure you are aware of the feelings of 
many of the management people. I don't 
have to list the 30 or so who contacted me. 
[5:30] 

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I hate to prolong this dis- 
cussion, but let me assure the member once 
again. My first premise is that the act, by 
its very nature, already interferes in the col- 
lective bargaining process and by interfering 
we impose upon ourselves an obligation to 
review how it works. I said that before and 
I won't bother reiterating it. It's clear that 
in many situations it wasn't working well 
and it behooves us to try and correct it. 

It's really that simple. There's no nefarious 
scheme or plot; it's not a pro-labour or an 
anti-labour bill. It's a bill designed to im- 
prove the system, to improve industrial rela- 
tions, and that's the sole object. I think it's 
imoroper and I would hesitate to view the 
bill as pro-anybody. I think it's pro the 
system and pro improving relations in the 
work place. 

As to the cost, I wasn't referring to the 
costs of arbitration. As the member for 
Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) mentioned, 
our experience with section 112(a), which 
deals with the construction industry, hasn't 
indicated any increase or any significant 



increase in the numher of arbitrations as a 
result of that process and I would be sur- 
prised if in the long run there are any in- 
creases here. There may well be some in the 
first year or two, who can predict? But I 
think it will get the parties to address them- 
selves to the issue we should all be con- 
cerned about, and that's the grievance. 

The costs to which I referred are the costs 
within government. I can't tell you what 
those costs will be in any finite detail be- 
cause we still have to go to Management 
Board over it, but I would suggest that one 
of the amendments I have introduced will 
allow as to phase in the process and get a 
better understanding of it without rushing 
into any costly endeavours. It will allow us 
to gain some experience, add staff and do 
the things which we think would be appro- 
priate in order to correct deficiencies in the 
system. I continue with my opposition to the 
member's amendment. 

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. 

Van Home's amendment to section 1 will 

please say "aye." 

All those opposed will please say "nay." 
In my opinion the nays have it. 

Amendment stacked. 

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Van Home moves that 
section 37a of the act, as set out in section 
1 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto 
the following subsections: 

"(8) Subsection to subsection 9, an arbi- 
trator appointed under subsection 4 shall 
render his decision in writing without rea- 
sons to both parties within seven days of the 
conclusion of the hearing. 

"(9) Where prior to the conclusion of the 
hearing either party requests reasons, an ar- 
bitrator appointed under subsection 4 shall 
render his decision with reasons in writing 
within 30 days of the conclusion of the hear- 
ing and that subsection 8 of the said section 
be renumbered as subsection 10." 

Mr. Van Home: Very briefly, Mr. Chair- 
man, the bill as proposed by the government 
attempts to deal with the problem of delay 
prior to but not following a hearing on the 
matter. The government failed to impose any 
limit on the amount of time an arbitrator 
must take to make an award. Our amend- 
ment is consistent with the findings of the 
joint management labour subcommittee of 
the Canadian Bar Association, which also 
recommends that time limits be imposed re- 
quiring arbitrators to render a decision 
within a fixed period of time. I say that in 
reference to the first of the two sections on 
which I made an amendment, and I would 



MAY 29, 1979 



2323 



stop at that point if the other parties wished 
to reply. 

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps you would like to 
continue with the whole amendment. 

Mr. Van Home: I think, Mr. Chairman, 
that I will refrain from any further com- 
ments, because really they are almost iden- 
tical in both instances. 

Mr. Mackenzie: I would just point out, 
Mr. Chairman, that we will be opposing 
these amendments. Depending on whether 
you use ministry or some of the union figures, 
once a single arbitrator is appointed, from 
there to the decision averages either 22 or 
23 days; I think this item 9 particularly may 
very well result in some of the decisions 
taking the full 30 days. In any event, I 
think it's better to give the legislation a 
chance to see what will happen rather than 
put these kind of time restrictions on it. 

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, just a 
couple of remarks. I think the point the 
member for Hamilton East made is a valid 
one. The statistics we have gathered reveal 
that when a single arbitrator is seized of a 
grievance arbitration problem, in 81 per cent 
of cases the decision will be awarded within 
30 days, and that's quite a contrast to other 
situations where there are larger boards. 
There's a lot to be said though, on paper, 
for having time limits down; but let's look 
at other legislation where there are time 
limits. 

For instance, the Police Act has a 60-day 
time limit. On one occasion there was a case 
that went to the Supreme Court because the 
arbitration award did not come down within 
that 60 days and the courts held that the 
60 day time limit was a directive only. 
You could say we should make it a manda- 
tory time limit. The problem with that is 
that of course if the arbitration comes back 
in 31 days with a decision it is null and void 
and the whole arbitration process has to 
start over again. In most situations single 
arbitrators have dealt with by far the great- 
est majority of problems within 30 days, 
therefore a reasonable time hmit would be a 
directive only, but, if you make it man- 
datory you will force a few cases to go 
through the whole arbitrary procedure again. 

In view of what we feel will be a closer 
relationship to the whole process once it's 
a part of the ministry, I think it's unreason- 
able at this time. 1 am not saying it won't 
have to come one day, but I have faith in 
the process and the figures and the people 
involved and the facts that I have outlined. 
I would consider that those are two un- 
necessary amendments at this time and I 
would oppose them. 



Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of 
Mr. Van Home's amendment will say "aye." 
All those opposed will say "nay." 
In my opinion the nays have it. 
Amendment stacked. 

Mr. Chairman: The member for Hamilton 
East, on what section? 

Mr. Mackenzie: Section 1 dealing with 
section 37a of the act; which, depending on 
how the vote goes on the other amendments, 
would involve a new subsection 7. The 
amendment that I would move is a very 
simple one. 

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Mackenzie moves that 
section 37a of the act, as set out in section 
1 of the bill, be amended by adding the 
following subsection: 

"(8) Upon the agreement of the parties, 
the arbitrator shall deliver an oral decision 
forthwith or as soon as practical without giv- 
ing his reasons in writing therefor." 

The existing subsection 8 will be renum- 
bered subsection 9. 

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of that 
amendment, Mr. Chairman, is simply that 
there are a sizeable number of agreements 
that could be resolved right on the spot at 
the hearing if the parties were agreeable 
to a verbal decision of the arbitrator and it 
might cut down some of the load substan- 
tially. 

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, it is a 
reasonable amendment, and it comes partway 
to meeting some of the concerns of the 
member for London North. I have no objec- 
tion to the amendment. 

Mr. Van Home: I have no objection, Mr. 
Chairman. 

Motion agreed to. 

Mr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Elgie moves that 
section 37a of the act, as set out in section 
1 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto 
the following subsections: 

"(10) The minister may establish a Ust 
of approved arbitrators and, for the pur- 
pose of advising him with respect to per- 
sons qualified to act as arbitrators in matters 
relating to arbitration, the minister may 
constitute a labour-management advisory 
committee composed of a chairman to be 
designated by the minister, and six members, 
three of whom shall represent employers and 
three of whom shall represent trade unions, 
and their remuneration and expenses shall 
be as the Lieutenant Governor in Council 
determines. 

"(11) This section does not apply to a 
collective agreement in operation on the day 
this act comes into force but applies to every 



2324 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



collective agreement that is renewed or made 
after that date. 

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I have 
some very brief remarks. The first part of 
the amendment reially does what I intended 
to do by regulation, but I tihink it is important 
that it be spelled out thalt the selection of 
arbitrators is something that I feel requires 
the advice of a labour-management group, 
and I think that it is important that both of 
those groups know that I will appreciate their 
advice in the future, should this amendment 
pass. 

On the second amendment, I think I have 
already menltioned the thrust of it. It allows 
us to phase in the act stage by stage so that 
we can gather together the valuable people 
who will be needed as we proceed rather 
than trying, in a rather hurried-up way, to 
gather together a staff. It will allow us time 
to do that in a very orderly and appropriate 
way. It also indicates some of our concern 
about intruding into the present collective 
agreements, and it allows the parties to bar- 
gain at the expiry of their present contracts 
to correct any deficiencies they may per- 
ceive in their existing grievance arbitration 
procedure. 

Mr. Van Home: Mr. Chairman, in so far 
as the advisory committee part of the amend- 
ment is concerned, I am pleased to support 
that, because I perceive it as a way in which 
parties may have more input into the process; 
it is as simple as that, and anything that 
allows more input is good, in my view. 
[5:45] 

The either part of the suggested amend- 
ment, that is, permitting this to be phased in, 
as it were, will allow both parties some 
time to consider revising their procedures so 
that it does not exceed the limits set out here; 
that, too, is good. Certainly I feel this is a 
bit of a concession, and perhaps the anxiety 
of waiting over these last four weeks and 
getting a little bit of flak has moved the 
minister to make this small concession. I do 
not think there is any question, as originally 
viewed, if this bill had come into effect, as 
it obviously would have because our party 
was the only one that was opposing it in any 
way, shape or form, there would have been 
a very strong feeling out in the community 
that if it became effective right away with 
agreements that were sitting there it would 
have been very upsetting to them. This is a 
concession, I am happy to think, which we 
might have had some small part in bringing 
about. 

Mr. Mackenzie: I have no problems witih 
section 10 at all and would support it. We 



have discussed section 11 and will support 
this amendment as well. I should point out 
in all fairness that it personally causes me 
some rather severe reservations. A number of 
pieces of legislation take effect upon the 
proclamation. I am not sure that I buy ithe 
argument that you need time to phase in 
legislation. We have waited a long time for 
some legislation to reduce the delays that 
seriously affect many people in lengthy or 
costly arbitration cases. 

However, I think this is a positive bill. It 
is one of the first bills-^and for this I com- 
mend the minister— that has made an effort 
to deal with one of the longstanding and 
severe problems we have had in the labour 
field. Maybe there are some fears there in 
terms of the agreements we have in existing 
collective agreements and in terms of the 
kind of a panel of art)itrators we are going to 
bave and how the bill is going to work and 
whether it gets a c'hance to be eased in or 
phased in. 

It is not the way I would have gone. In 
trying to understand these fears, however, 
it may very well be the case that this particu- 
lar amendment will force the parties that 
have not been able to reach satisfactory con- 
clusions in the past in the arbitration pro- 
cedures to sit dbwn and come up with better 
methods and to do it in the time frame 
they have before the expiry of their current 
contracts. 

I do want to point out, however, the reason 
I have some reservations, although I am will- 
ing to accept the amendmenit, is that there 
are some two-year and there are some three- 
year contracts around. I suppose at the time 
this legislation becomes law there is not going 
to be thait large a percentage of the work 
force involved in three-year contracts, but 
it does mean if they are not happy with the 
current procedures, these workers are going 
to be waiting a fairly long time. I hope what 
we gain in terms of more acceptance of a 
rather substantial change in the procedures is 
worth the costs that may exist to some of 
those that are locked into fairly long con- 
tracts. Having said 'that, we will support the 
government amendment. 

Mr. Bounsall: Here is where I give the 
game away. I just wanted to say that I too 
had some concerns about section 10, but I 
can understand that there may be some 
advantages to having a phase-in period for 
the bill. I gather that more than half of the 
contracts do come up within the year in any 
event, so this will be effeOtive for more than 
half of the contracts. With a bill that is an 
improvement, I do not like to see a waiting 



MAY 29, 1979 



2325 



period for those i)ersons who will not have 
the advantages of it ait the same time otiiers 
will. 

In the selection of the list of arbitrators 
you are being advised by a panel imdier the 
other amendment as to who should be arbi- 
trators. Maybe we could well afford to have 
some exi)erience of the bill's operation before 
it does apply to everyone in the province, 
even though I would like to see everyone 
covered by those positive amendments. It 
may well be that by the time most people 
would then use it any procedures or problems 
that come with introducing these amendments 
will have been worked out for them to avoid 
any delays that might come for some of those 
units in any event. While I am not particu- 
larly happy with it, I certainly would not 
oppose it. 

Motion agreed to. 

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Chairman, I have one 
further small amendment. 

iMr. Chairman: Hon. Mr. Elgie moves that 
the bill be amended by adding the following 
section: 

2. Section 96(1) of the act is repealed and 
the following substituted therefor: 

"96(1) Where a request is madte under sec- 
tion 15, section 37(1), or section 37a(l), the 
minister may refer to the board any questions 
that arise that in his opinion relate to his 
authority to make an appointment under any 
such provision that is mentioned in the refer- 
ence and the board shall report to the minister 
a decision on the question." 

Hon. Mr. Elgie also moves that the follow- 
ing sections of the bill be renumbered 
accordingly. 

Hon. Mr. Elgie: This amendment really 
adds the reference to section 37(a) in section 



96 to allow the minister to refer in case there 
is any question about his authority to appoint 
an arbitrator. 

Motion agreed to. 

Sections 3 to 6 as renumbered, inclusive, 
agreed to. 

Mr. Chairman: We have a number of 
amendments stacked. I would remind! the 
members that the division bells will ring for 
up to 10 minutes. 

The committee divided on Mr. Swart's 
amendment to section 4 of Bill 29, which was 
negatived on the following vote: Ayes 28; 
nays 62. 

Bill 29 reported. 

The committee divided on Mr. Van 
Home's amendment to section 1 of Bill 25, 
which was negatived on the following vote: 
Ayes 23; nays 67. 

The committee divided' on Mr. Van Home's 
further amendment to section 1 of Bill 25, 
which was negatived on the same vote. 

Bill 25, as amended, reported. 

On motion by Hon. Mr. Grossman, the 
committee of the whole House reported one 
bill with amendments and another bill with- 
out amendment. 

THIRD READINGS 

The following bills were given third read- 
ing on motion: 

Bill 25, An Act to amend the Labour Rela- 
tions Act. 

Bill 29, An Act to provide for Municipal 
Hydro-Electric Service in the Regional Mu- 
nicipality of Niagara. 

The House recessed at 6:08 p.m. 



2326 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



APPENDIX 

(See page 2309) 



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 
ON NOTICE PAPER 

MARKHAM AREA SCHOOL NEEDS 

182. Mr. Stong: Will the Minister of Educa- 
tion act upon the request of the Community 
Association for Unionville Secondary Educa- 
tion (CAUSE) to provide a new high school 
in Unionville? Will the minister review the 
development applications which provide for 
approximately 3,000 new homes in Unionville, 
2,000 in Risebrough and 3,300 in Markham, 
the result of which will not only overcrowd 
both Markham District High School and 
Thomlea High School, but would call for the 
immediate construction of a secondary school 
in the Unionville area? Will the minister im- 
mediately undertake to satisfy the need of 
the secondary school students in Unionville 
to be educated in their own community? 
(Tabled May 16, 1979.) 

183. Mr. Sfx)ng: Will the Minister of Edu- 
cation act upon the request of the Risebrough 
Community Association in the community of 
Markham, Ontario, to provide new and ade- 
quate school facilities to meet the growing 
educational needs in that area? Will the 
minister inform herself of the situation which 
now exists, in that projected figures indicate 
that by September 1, 1979, 1000 units of the 
1130 units being built will be occupied pro- 
ducing approximately 480 students seeking 
ed'ucational facilities? Will the minister review 
the present policy which requires kindergar- 
ten children from this area to be bused to a 
school in Richmond Hill and which also sees 
children in grades one to five being bused 
to a small school where gymnastic and library 
facilities are non-existent? Will the minister 
immediately review and provide adequate 
facilities in this community to meet the educa- 
tional demands which will be in existence 
by September 1, 1979? (Tabled May 16, 
1979.) 

184. Mr. Stong: Will the Minister of Edu- 
cation cause an investigation to be made into 
the overcrowding conditions which exist at 
the German Mills Public School in Markham? 
Will the minister explain the policy of the 
Ministry which appears to prefer the busing 
of pupils to distant empty classrooms in the 
regional municipality of York rather than con- 
struct new facilities or add on to existing 
facilities where circumstances warrant? Will 
the minister review the policy of the ministry 
which requires that prior to the building of 
a school, there exist sufficient number of chil- 



dren in the area to equal 80 per cent of the 
projected capacity of the said school and 
apply that formula to the building of a school 
on the Flowerdale site in the town of Mark- 
ham, in order to accommodate the excess 
eiu*olment in the German Mills Public School 
which is equal to 123 per cent of that 
school's designed capacity? Will the minister 
review the immediate need for a new school 
on the Flowerd'ale site in the light of project- 
ed figures over the next five years which in- 
dicate that school-age children in the area 
will increase to approximately 900 and which 
figure does not talce into account the fact that 
there is presently before the Ontario Mvmici- 
pal Board an application by a developer to 
build in the area an additional 190 town- 
houses? If this project is allowed to proceed 
the projected figures indicate that school 
enrolment will not decline until 1995. Will 
the minister initiate a policy which would 
provide architecturally acceptable but mov- 
able school buildings to accommodate the 
shifting need of the school population? How 
does 5ie minister reconcile the ministry's 
policy of fiscal restraint, which includes bus- 
ing and which dictates against the welfare of 
children, with the more important need of 
providing adequate facilities so that the 
educational and social needs of children may 
be properly met in their own community 
environment? Will the minister therefore 
satisfy the needs of the children in the Ger- 
man Mills area of Markham and build a 
second school on the Flowerdale site? (Tabled 
May 16, 1979.) 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We require addi- 
tional time to prepare our response to ques- 
tions 182, 183 and 184, Notice Paper 44. 
The answers will be ready for tabling on or 
about June 8, 1979. 

GLANBROOK LANDFILL SITE 

185. Mr. Isaacs: Would the Premier table 
in the House the advice which he received 
from the environmental assessment steering 
committee in early April concerning the pro- 
posal that the hearings in Glanbrook be recon- 
vened under the 1975 Environmental Assess- 
ment Act; and would the Premier explain why 
the provisions of the 1975 act are not being 
applied to major municipal government proj- 
ects such as landfill sites? (Tabled May 17, 
1979.) 

See sessional paper 79. 



MAY 29, 1979 2327 



CONTENTS 

Tuesday, May 29, 1979 

Civil court pilot project, statement by Mr. McMurtry 2287 

OPP training centre, statement by Mr. McMurtry 2287 

Closure of Brampton correctional facility, statement by Mr. Walker 2288 

Municipal legislation, statement by Mr. Wells 2289 

Point of privilege re reference to dioxin in fish, Mr. Kerrio 2290 

Point of privilege re nuclear plant safety, Mr. MacDonald 2290 

Radiation from X-rays, questions of Mr. Timbrell: Mr. S. Smith, Mr. Cassidy, 

Mr. McGuigan 2293 

Disposal of hazardous wastes, questions of Mr. Parrott: Mr. S. Smith 2294 

Nuclear plant safety, questions of Mr. Auld: Mr. Cassidy 2295 

Economic impact of government programs, questions of Mr. McCague: Mr. Cassidy .... 2296 

Food prices, questions of Mr. Drea: Mr. Breithaupt, Mr. Swart 2296 

Hospital bed allocations, questions of Mr. Davis: Mr. Cooke, Mr. B. Newman 2297 

Dioxin in fish, question of Mr. Parrott: Mr. Kennedy 2298 

Abitibi prosecution, questions of Mr. Parrott; Mr. Gaunt 2298 

Electrical imports, questions of Mr. Grossman: Mr. Laughren 2300 

Alcoholism treatment, questions of Mrs. Birch and Mr. Norton: Mr. Cassidy 2300 

Point of privilege re nuclear plant safety, Ms. Gigantes 2301 

Strikes, questions of Mr. Elgie: Mr. O'Neil 2302 

Child support payments, questions of Mr. Norton: Mr. McClellan, Mr. Bolan 2302 

Strawberry marketing, questions of Mr. W. Newman: Mr. Nixon, Mr. Makarchuk 2303 

OHC eviction, question of Mr. Bennett: Mr. di Santo 2304 

Point of privilege re nuclear plant safety, Ms. Gigantes 2305 

Motion re private members* business, Mr. Grossman, agreed to 2305 

Municipal Amendment Act, Mr. Wells, first reading 2306 

Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act, Mr. Wells, first reading 2306 

Condominium Amendment Act, Mr. Drea, first reading 2306 

Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Amendment Act, Mr. Epp, first reading 2306 

Agricultural Investment Disclosure Act, Mr. Riddell, first reading 2306 

Public Accountancy Amendment Act, Mr. McMurtry, first reading 2306 

Evidence Amendment Act, Mr. McMurtry, first reading 2307 

Administration of Justice Amendment Act, Mr. McMurtry, first reading 2307 



2328 LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 

Judicature Amendment Act, Mr. McMurtry, first reading 2307 

County Judges Amendment Act, Mr. McMurtry, first reading 2307 

Provisional Court (Civil Division) Project Act, Mr. McMurtry, first reading 2307 

Point of order re scheduling of business, Mr. Martel 2307 

Tabling answers to questions 182-185 on Notice Paper, Mr. Grossman 2309 

Niagara Municipal Hydro-Electric Service Act, in committtee 2309 

Labour Relations Amendment Act, in committee 2316 

Niagara Municipal Hydro-Electric Service Act, reported 2325 

Labour Relations Amendment Act, reported ,... 2325 

Third reading. Bill 25 and Bill 29 , „ 2325 

Recess 2325 

Appendix, answers to questions on Notice Paper 2326 

Markham area school needs, questions of Miss Stephenson: Mr. Stong 2326 

Glanbrook landfill site, questions of Mr. Davis: Mr. Isaacs 2326 



MAY 29, 1979 2329 



SPEAKERS IN THIS ISSUE 



Ashe, G. (Durham West PC) 

Auld, Hon. J. A. C; Minister of Energy; Minister of Natural Resources (Leeds PC) 

Bennett, Hon. C; Minister of Housing (Ottawa South PC) 

Bolan, M. (Nipissing L) 

Bounsall, E. J. (Windsor-Sandwdch NDP) 

Bradley, J. (St. Catharines L) 

Breaugh, M. (Oshawa NDP) 

Breithaupt, J. R. (Kitchener L) 

Campbell, M. (St. George L) 

Cassidy, M. (Ottawa Centre NDP) 

Conway, S. (Renfrew North L) 

Cooke, D. (Windsor-Riverside NDP) 

Davis, Hon. W. G.; Premier (Brampton PC) 

Davison, M. N. (Hamilton Centre NDP) 

di Santo, O. (Downsview NDP) 

Drea, Hon. F.; Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Scarborough Centre PC) 

EdighoflFer, H.; Chairman (Perth L) 

Elgie, Hon. R.; Minister of Labour (York East PC) 

Gaunt, M. (Huron-Bruce L) 

Gigantes, E. (Carleton East NDP) 

Grossman, Hon. L.; Minister of Industry and Tourism {St Andrew-St. Patrick PC) 

Haggerty, R. (Erie L) 

Hall, R. (Lincoln L) 

Henderson, Hon. L. C; Minister of Government Services, Chairman of Cabinet (Lambton PC) 

Kennedy, R. D. (Mississauga South PC) 

Kerrio, V. (Niagara Falls L) 

Laughren, F. (Nickel Belt NDP) 

MacBeth, J. P.; Deputy Chairman (Humber PC) 

MacDonald, D. C. (York South NDP) 

Mackenzie, R. (Hamilton East NDP) 

Makarchuk, M. (Brantford NDP) 

Mancini, R. (Essex South L) 

Mattel, E. W. (Sudbury East NDP) 

McCague, Hon. G.; Chairman Management Board of Cabinet (DuflFerin Simcoe PC) 

McClellan, R. (Bellwoods NDP) 

McGuigan, J. (Kent-Elgin L) 

McMurtry, Hon. R.; Attorney General; Sohcitor General (Eglinton PC) 

Newman, B. (Windsor- Walkerville L) 

Newman, Hon. W.; Minister of Agriculture and Food (Durham-York PC) 

Nixon, R. F. (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk L) 

Norton, Hon. K.; Minister of Community and Social Services (Kingston and the Islands PC) 

O'Neil, H. (Quinte L) 

Parrott, Hon. H. C; Minister of the Environment (Oxford PC) 

Reed, J. (Halton-Burlington L) 

Riddell, J. K. (Huron-Middlesex L) 

Roy, A. J. (Ottawa East L) 

Samis, G. (Cornwall NDP) 

Smith, S.; Leader of the Opposition (Hamilton West L) 

Stephenson, Hon. B.; Minister of Education (York Mills PC) 

Stokes, Hon. J. E.; Speaker (Lake Nipigon NDP) 

Swart, M. (Welland-Thorold NDP) 

Sweeney, J. (Kitchener-Wilmot L) 

Timbrell, Hon. D. R.; Minister of Health (Don Mills PC) 

Van Home, R. (London North L) 

Walker, Hon. G.; Minister of Correctional Services (London South PC) 

Warner, D. (Scarborough-Ellesmere NDP) 

Wells, Hon. T. L.; Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Scarborough North PC) 




;,™f No. 57 

Ontario 



Legislature of Ontario 
Debates 

Official Report (Hansard) 



Third Session, 31st Parliament 

Tuesday, May 29, 1979 
Evening Sitting 

Speaker: Honourable John E. Stokes 
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, QC 



CONTENTS 



Contents of the proceedings reported in this issue of Hansard appears at the back, 
together with an alphabetical list of the speaker taking part. 

Reference to a cumulative index of previous issues can be obtained by calling the 
Hansard Reporting Service indexing sta£F at (416) 965-2159. 



Hansard subscription price is $15 per session from: Sessional Subscription Service, Printing 
Services Branch, Ministry of Government Services, Ninth Floor, Ferguson Block, Parliament 
Buildings, Toronto M7A 1N3; phone (416) 965-2238. 

Publis'hed by the Legislature of the Province of Ontario. 

Editor of Debates: Peter Brannan. o^i^&o^^ 



2333 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



The House resumed at 8 p.m. 
House in committee of supply. 

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF 
NORTHERN AFFAIRS 

(concluded) 

On vote 702, project development and 
community relations program; item 2, project 
de\'elopment and implementation: 

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The member for 
Algoma. 

Mr. VVildman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
If I could be given the same indidgence the 
minister was given the other night, I would 
like to ha\e the members join with me in 
welcoming to the Legislature a group of 
students from the north. The students in the 
gallery are from the community of Bruce 
Mines. I'd like to welcome them. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Are they assisted by the 
Young Voyageurs Program? 

Mr. VVildman: Yes, the Young Voyageurs 
Program is a very good one because my area 
is just short of one day's travel away. 

Mr. B. Newman: They may not want to 
go home now they have seen Toronto. 

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Do you think they 
recognized their member. 

Mr. Wildman: They thought I was a bit 
light headed. 

I would like to raise with the minister 
under this vote matters regarding the func- 
tion of working in concert with municipalities 
and other ministries in developing plans to 
improve northern community conditions in 
responding to local needs. 

As the minister will recall, he said earlier 
during the debate in these estimates he 
thought he might have something to an- 
nounce in regard to Blind River and the 
need for upgrading the sewage system there 
in order to allow the town to expand in the 
face of the spin-oflF from Elliot Lake and the 
tremendous expansion taking place there. I 
hope the minister might be able to bring 
us up to date on that. 

I want to go into more detail in regard to 
one of the other communities in my area, 
since I think it exemplifies what we were 
discussing yesterday in the estimates with 



Tuesday, May 29, 1979 

regard to one-industry towns in northern 
Ontario. That's specifically White River. As 
the minister knows, White River is in the 
far north end of Algoma riding and it's a 
community that traditionally was a railroad 
community and now has become largely a 
lumber community dependent upon the new 
Abitibi mill. The minister also knows White 
River has just experienced a serious flood, 
one of the many floods in the north this year, 
and residents are just now recovering from 
that. They are awaiting word from the cab- 
inet as to whether or not they wfll have final 
confirmation on assistance for that com- 
munity. 

Even prior to the flood, there were some 
serious difficulties in keeping young people 
in White Ri\er, even though there is now 
an opportunity for emplo>Tnent there. For 
many years White River experienced a drop 
in population because the CPR had cut its 
running trades working out of that com- 
munity and there just wasn't much oppor- 
tunity for >'Oung people to have employment. 
Now with the new Abitibi mill being es- 
tablished and expanding its operations, they 
run into other problems because the mill 
workers are moving into town. The company 
intends to bring a large number of bucherons 
or cutters into the area, largely from the 
Gaspe and other parts of Quebec, and per- 
haps New Brunswick, as well as other parts 
of Ontario. 

A lot of the young people from White 
River itself, have got jobs in the mill, but 
we have had this influx of people into the 
community. That led to a number of prob- 
lems. For a long time they didn't have 
adequate sewage facilities. That meant they 
couldn't provide housing for the people who 
were willing to move to White River. The 
Ministry of the Environment did agree a 
few years ago to give assistance, along with 
the federal government through DREE, to 
provide a sewage treatment plant and a new 
sewage system for the new development but 
not for the old. 

As a result, they have been able to build 
a subdivision in that community. They have 
built an apartment building and there is a 
mobile-home park. Even with that they have 
had upwards of a 200 per cent turnover in 



2334 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



workers at the mill because there is a lack 
of other amenities. 

There just isn't much choice in shopping. 
Prices are high in White River for every- 
day goods, such as groceries, clothing, fur- 
niture and those kinds of things. There is 
not much choice. They can go to Wawa or 
Marathon or Manitouwadge, or Thunder Bay 
or the Sault, but those centres are quite 
distant. 

More than that, there aren't many ameni- 
ties there. There is not a recreation centre. 
The community is now moving towards the 
setting up of a recreation centre. That is 
very costly for a small community such as 
White River, even though they qualify for 
Wintario, the Community Recreation Centres 
Act grants and so on. 

With this kind of turnover you can see th-^ 
problems they have. In housing, they have 
had serious problems with the subdivisions. 
There have been complaints to the Housing 
and Urban Development Association of Can- 
ada, to Central Mortgage and Housing Cor- 
poration and to the company, but they don't 
seem to be getting too far. The developer 
claims he has done what he should hive 
done. 

There have been complaints about the 
conditions and rules in the apartment build- 
ing. There have also been complaints about 
the attitude of the operators of the mobile- 
home park. \\Tiat it really boils down to is 
the fact that the cost of housing is very 
high, as well as everything else. There is 
the extra cost of fuel because it is so cold 
in the winter. As you know, White River is 
famous for its claim to be the coldest place 
in Canada. 

To give them their due, officials of the 
company did say they would subsidize their 
workers if they wanted to buy a house by 
providing up to $2,000 toward the cost of 
the house. Basically all that did was raise 
the cost of every house by $2,000. 

I wonder what this ministry is doing, if 
anything, in getting involved in White River 
with the improvement district board, with 
the company, with the unions and the busi- 
ness people of White River to try to bring 
them together to deal with these very serious 
problems that have led to a lot of com- 
plaints, unhappiness and division in the 
c()mmunit\' which, hopefully has dissipated 
as a result of the tragedy they have recently 
had to endure where people have come to- 
gether and worked together. I think this 
might be a beginning to try to bring people 
together to try to deal with some of these 
problems. 



What would probably bring down the cost 
of housing and what I am leading to is if 
there could be some competition and if 
some more land could be made available 
for housing. We have a tremendous amount 
of crown land all around the community but 
it is not available. The municipality has been 
negotiating with Marathon Realty, that i.s 
the realty section of the CPR, for some land 
that they own so that can establish a muni- 
cipal subdivision. If that municipal subdi- 
vision had been available at the time the 
other subdivision was going in perhaps there 
would have been more competition and the 
price would not have been so high. But it 
wasn't in operation; it still isn't and it isn't 
going to be now for some time. 

Are you doing anything to try to speed 
up the negotiations with the CPR and the 
approvals of the various authorities— the Min- 
istry of Housing and so on— for the muni- 
cipal subdivision? What, if anything, is the 
ministry doing? I know it has been very 
much involved in Hornepayne; we have had 
discussions about Hornepayne, the other most 
northerly community in my riding. I would 
like to see the same kind of operation in 
White River that the ministry has had up 
there, and perhaps in Atikokan and other 
places. 

If the minister could give me some indica- 
tion on Blind River and tell me what role, if 
any, his ministr>' has had in WHiite River— 
or, if it has not had any, what role it intends 
to have in White River— I would appreciate 
it. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, before 
I begin my remarks, I want to join the 
member for Algoma in welcoming the group 
from Bruce Mines. In fact, Bruce Mines 
sticks in my mind as a very popular place, 
because a former federal candidate in my 
riding came from Bruce Mines. She is now 
living in Sioux Lookout, the wife of a very 
prominent doctor, and constantly speaks of 
her childhood days at Bruce Mines. It is a 
real pleasure to join the honourable member 
in welcoming this northern group to the 
Legislature this evening. 

I hope they will not look at the attendance 
here tonight as any indication of the interest 
in the estimates of the Ministry of Northern 
Affairs. 

Mr. Makarchuk: There's a chiropractors' 
dinner that is just winding down. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I see; the chiropractors 
have taken over. 

Mr. Chairman, it was my understanding 
that, if we went on with our estimates to- 
night, the estimates would be deemed to be 



MAY 29, 1979 



2335 



completed at the hour of 10:30. Is that the 
understanding? 

Mr. Wildman: That's right. 

Mr. Foulds: Quit stalling; get on with it. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: When I look at the order 
paper, I see there are three hours left, and 
there are only two and a half hours tonight. 
But as long as we are agreed that when the 
hour of 10:30 arrives— 

Mr. Wildman: If we hurry along, we will 
get three hoiu-s work done in two and a half 
hours. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Fine. I agree 100 per 
cent. 

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Minister, you 
are on vote 702, item 2. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Thank you, Mr. Chair- 
man. If I may respond to the honourable 
member in connection \vith his inquiry re- 
garding Blind River, I am sure he is aware 
that the environmental assessment report was 
just released the other day. It looks at the 
entire problem of development at Elliott 
Lake, and in the short term it gives us encour- 
agement that we can mo\'e ahead uith devel- 
opment there. The report does not ha\'e the 
answers to the long-term possible problems 
because of the time factor, which was clearly 
spelled out in that report. The report will be 
ver>- carefully looked at by my staflF as it 
relates to Blind River and the surrounding 
area and what will happen and what we can 
encourage at Elliot Lake vis-a-vis the devel- 
opment that should occur at Blind River. 

While I do not have any answers at my 
fingertips, I want to assure the member that 
the Blind River issue is one of the problems 
that is first and foremost in the minds of my 
ministry, along with Sturgeon Falls, Longlac 
and a few others across northern Ontario 
which we hope to deal with in the next short 
period. 

I suppose White River does not really 
have the same problems as other municipali- 
ties, but it has similar problems. These arise 
when a new industry is established in a com- 
munity that has been relatively dormant for 
a number of years; when one gets a large 
company like Abitibi moving in there, and 
there is an influx of new workers— and it had 
difficulty with the mill in terms of getting 
employees there; we are all aware of that. 

I am pleased to say that the Ontario- 
Department of Regional Economic Expansion 
agreement that brought in a further develop- 
ment of the sewer and water facilities was 
one of the first I signed as Minister of North- 
ern Affairs. So White River is very familiar 
to me. 



We have to accept the fact that there is a 
supply and demand problem as it relates to 
lots. In many instances I do not think north- 
erners have really accepted all the facts about 
the cost of putting in infrastructure. We who 
li\'e there look at the massive amounts of land 
and we say to ourselves, "All we have to do 
it get a surveyor, make sure we have access to 
a public road, put in a septic tank, and the 
land should be relatively cheap." But when 
one starts developing it, putting in the neces- 
sary amenities to which the honourable mem- 
ber refers, then of course the price does go 
up. 

[8:15] 

In fact, in my own riding a subdivision was 
planned in Red Lake. When they finished all 
the sur\'eys, cost factors and the engineering 
reports, the lots were $27,000. They had open 
ditches; not even the storm sewers were in 
place. That is the kind of problem we are 
faced with. 

We have not been directly involved in a 
co-ordinating role with White River. To my 
knowledge, we ha\en't been asked. We would 
like to think that the local authorities, I 
belie\'e theirs is an improvement district- 
Mr. Wildman: They are going to become a 
township. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: That's a major step for- 
ward. But the local autonomy is there. If they 
required our assistance we would be glad to 
move in but we certainly don't want to move 
in and take over, usurping their authority. 

We do take a leading role in other com- 
munities, such as Atikokan which has peculiar 
problems with regard to its future economy. 
The townsite of Pickle Lake was a develop- 
ment project in which we accepted a lead 
ministry role because we were asked to do so 
by that communit>'. It is an improvement dis- 
trict, I might say, but they had little experi- 
ence dealing with government and really 
needed and appreciated the role taken by the 
Ministry of Northern Affairs in moving in 
and giving them their sole contact with a 
provincial departmment. 

Another area under this vote in which we 
are directly involved is the English-Wabigoon 
employment strategy, where we are assisting 
the native people on the English-Wabigoon 
River system to become directly involved in 
commercial fishing and in co-operation with 
the tourist industry we are working out an 
excellent employment program. 

The public service advisory board, both in 
the northeast and the northwest, also comes 
under this particular vote. The Moosonee 
tourism development project, the Manitoulin 
Island development agency, and the Parry 



2336 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Sound federal-provincial manpower projects 
come under this vote. All our DREE projects 
and agreements are under this vote, as is the 
Sault Ste. Marie economic opportunities 
project. 

Those are just a few of the areas in 
which we are involved. When municipalities 
ask us to play that role we try to co- 
ordinate, co-operate and do all we can on 
their behalf. 

I was looking at the figures for White 
River. Last year we spent close to $600,000 
in the sewer and water development pro- 
jects; this year we will wind down that 
project. I think it is now completed, with 
just the funding still to go through. About 
$448,000 is in this year's estimates for 
payment on the White River services. Next 
year, 1980-81, we have projected $30,000; 
so that should wind down. 

I share your concern with regard to the 
lack of lots. I would hope, as I said earlier, 
that the municipalities could work some- 
thing out with Marathon Realty Company 
Limited. I don't see why they can't. Barring 
that, there is suflBcient crown land around 
White River that could be developed. Thank 
God, there's lots of land in northern Ontario 
and surely there is no shortage around White 
River. However, there may be some short- 
age in the exact location as it relates to 
their infrastructure. If they require some 
assistance from my ministry we will be glad 
to sit down with them and do everything 
we can. 

Mr. Wildman: One of the serious difficul- 
ties they have had with getting the mill 
and getting the people in there is the cost 
of housing. Because of the lack of compe- 
tition, people who aren't directly involved 
in the mill operation face tremendously high 
costs. People like teachers, people in the 
.service area and so on who want to come in 
are not given any subsidy in a subdivision 
for instance, yet they face these very high 
costs because of the subsidies given to others. 

That is a major problem, and I think this 
is the kind of thing we should be looking at 
in terms of assistance. I will certainly pass 
your comments along to the local authori- 
ties to see if they are interested. 

Another thing you should look at is the 
tremendous length of time it has taken since 
the government made its decision to change 
its position on the sale of crown lots to ap- 
praise them and determine their value. Also, 
there is the question of whether or not they 
are going to make crown lots available to 
provide permanent residences for people who 
live in the north in places like White River 



and Missanabie. They're ready to give cot- 
tage lots to people from southern Ontario, 
but we've got people living in the area or 
wanting to live and work in the area who 
can't get lots. 

I'm a little unhapp}' it's taken so long for 
the Ministry of Natural Resources to deal 
with this kind of problem. There are people 
in Missanabie, for instance, who applied for 
lots last year and they still haven't been 
answered. I think that's a problem in other 
areas. I've had complaints in the southern 
part of my riding and in other ridings as 
well. That's one solution that might help 
to bring down the costs in these isolated 
communities. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Chairman, in res- 
ponding to the honourable member I must 
point out that while the cost of housing 
may appear exorbitant in some of these 
small northern communities, I think one of 
the real dangers and the real fears of a pros- 
pective home owner is the resale potential. 
That is the key. To put out $40,000 or 
$50,000 for a home in Toronto is nothing. 
It's easy to get a mortgage, it's no problem. 
The down payment is relatively low; but the 
resale value is there, the market is there. 
When you start applying that to places like 
White River, and even towns like Sioux 
Lookout and Hudson are typical examples, 
tlie resale value is not there. 

Mr. Wildman: That's why they don't want 
to pay the high cost of housing. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Yes. There is fear of 
loss on investment by the potential home 
owner. 

The problem with crown land adjacent to 
organized municipalities and the desire of 
those municipalities to expand is one we're 
starting to move in on. There are problems, 
as the member is ver>' much aware. 

The taxes in some of these small com- 
munities are relatively low so you get a lot 
of vacant land, and there is no real filling 
in on the lots. If they're not filled it spreads 
the community up and down the highway. 
Then they come along and they want sewer 
and water services that are spread out a great 
distance and the cost is exorbitant. Other 
problems follow, such as the extension of 
electric services and school bus stopping; 
all these things create further problems. 
There has to be some reasonable, orderly 
development to the extension of further .sub- 
divisions in those areas, but that's an area 
we will be looking at very carefully with the 
Ministry of Natural Resources and the Min- 
istry of Housing. 

I've nlready had discussions with the Min- 
ister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) in connection 



' 



MAY 29, 1979 



2337 



with the future role of the Planning Act, as 
it was going through its stages of redesign 
I suppose we might say. In fact the Minister 
of Housing will be in Dryden in the middle 
of June to have one of his pubUc participa- 
tion exercises as it relates to the Planning 
Act. 

Ive encouraged my people in that area to 
come out and to express the point of view 
you've just announced and elaborated on, 
that we have crown land, we have lots of 
land available. Sometimes I think we're using 
our crown land in the opposite direction. 
Sometimes it's a liability instead of being 
an asset to us. I personally feel more of this 
crown land should be passed out to the 
private sector. We can tax them sufl5ciently 
and get a return to those municipalities so 
they can provide the necessary services, such 
as recreational centres and the amenities of 
life we want in northern Ontario. If they 
can't get the land, how can they pay the 
taxes and how can they develop it and im- 
prove the area? 

I can assure the member that's one area 
we will be moving in on. 

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Chairman, what I have to 
say on this item deals with the question of 
the work of the ministry in concert with other 
ministries. In this particular instance I'm 
thinking of the Ministry of Community and 
Social Services. What I'd like to know is 
what >ou are going to do and what you are 
going to say about the completely intem- 
perate remarks made yesterday afternoon by 
the Minister of Community and Social Serv- 
ices when he labelled northern Ontario a 
work camp for delinquent fathers. 

Is that the general attitude of your gov- 
ernment? Is that the insensitivity, or does it 
typify the insensitivity which your govern- 
ment shows towards northern Ontario? I 
know it certainly is not your view because 
I know you are sensitive to the issues of 
northern Ontario and you are sensitive about 
northern Ontario. 

I think this has been clearly demonstrated 
by your knowledge of your ministry during 
the debate on the estimates. However, for 
a minister of the crown to give to the press 
yesterday afternoon his remarks about north- 
em Ontario being a large work camp, or a 
labour camp, or a slave camp, if that's what 
he wants to call it, and comparing it to 
Siberia — part of another country which is 
well known — I think is disgraceful. The least 
he could have done today was to apologize 
to this House. He did not see fit to do so 
when I gave him every opportunity. 

I would hope, Mr. Minister, when you 
have your cabinet meeting tomorrow, that 



you're going to wring his ears and you're 
going to tell him, "Look, lay off northern 
Ontario. Northern Ontario is not a cesspool 
for the scum of southern Ontario." 

Mr. Wildman: That's right. 

Mr. Bolan: We don't want those people 
up there and I'm siure you don't want them 
either. After all, there are other ways of 
dealing with them. If they want to stay in 
southern Ontario, if you want to develop 
labour camps or work camps in southern 
Ontario, then go ahead and do so. But would 
you please tell him to lay oflF northern On- 
tario? 

What I'd Uke to know, Mr. Minister, is 
what are >ou going to do? What are you 
going to say about these intemperate remarks 
of his? 

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I don't know how 
that fits into item 2, Mr. Minister, but go 
ahead. 

Mr. Roy: Right on, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Deputy Chairman: It's project devel- 
opment implementation. 

Mr. Wildman: His project is work camps. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I was not privy to the 
honourable minister's comments. He's a very 
able minister, one that is very sensitive to 
human needs. 

Mr. Roy: He's misguided as hell though. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I'm sure he will be 
able to respond himself. He doesn't need me, 
certainly. 

Mr. Foulds: Do you agree with him? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I don't know what he 
said. I'm just taking in what you have said. 

Mr. Roy: Don't you read the press? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: If anybody said that 
and it's correct, then I have to agree with 
you that we are not a Siberia. We are not a 
work camp area. 

Mr. Roy: Right, then tell him that. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We hope we're a 
resource development area, but I'm sure he 
will be looking after his own comments and 
will be able to respond very ably. 

Mr. Roy: You're big enough, Leo. Take 
him aside; take him to the woodshed, Leo. 

Mr. Wildman: I was just wondering if the 
minister may have been referring to Minaki 
when he was talking about work camps. 
Maybe this is one solution for the difficulty 
the ministry is having in dealing with Mi- 
naki and trying to find some use for it, since 
they have been taking so long to negotiate 
with the private sector to take it over. 



2338 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Mr. Haggerty: I thought it was a gjv- 
emor's mansion. 

Mr. Wildman: The only thing I don't 
understand is his comparing it to Siberia, It 
seems to me Minalci would be a rather com- 
fortable Siberia. I wonder if that was what 
he was getting at, that he was going to use 
Minaki for something like sending all of 
these delinquent fathers up there to think 
about— 

Mr. Roy: But would you trust them in 
Minaki? 

Mr. Wildman: Who knows. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I will not comment on 
the member's remarks. The former leader of 
that party knows very well the attitude of 
the town of Minaki. 

Mr. Wildman: They don't want the south- 
erners either. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I will let your words 
stand on the record to further supplement 
what your former leader has tried to do 
through the town of Minaki. 

Mr. Deputy Chairman: The member for 
Port Arthur has further remarks. 

Mr. Foulds: I would like to shift topics 
considerably and discuss \vith the minister 
what role he sees his ministry playing in the 
extension of highway facilities, I refer spe- 
cifically, having had some correspondence 
with the minister and with the Ministry of 
Transportation and Communications, to the 
matter of highway 589 north to Dawn Lak". 
Just let me remind the minister briefly in 
case lie doesn't have the material at hand. 
Highway 589 is the secondary highway lor 
approximately three miles north of highway 
591, north of Lappe junction. We will l^e 
talking about Lappe later in th - estim.ites 
this evening. Then it becomes the jurisdic- 
tion for a couple of miles of the Jacques 
roads board, and then it just becomes a 
trap of a private road. 

I have had considerable correspondence 
with MTC trying to persuade them to push 
the highway all the way north another three 
miles in fact, and incorporate it into the 
secondary road system of the ministry. 

The MTC has not been too encouraging, 
I think it was on March 9 I wrote to this 
minister. Unfortunately, he hasn't had iime 
to reply. I have just written again the other 
day giving further information that I Jiad 
from MTC on the matter, 
[8:301 

The point I want to make is it does seem 
from the strict standard of MTC that high- 
way 589 doesn't fall into its criteria in terms 
of traffic volumes to justify upgrading it to a 



secondary highway, although I find that 
argument a little hard to accept when they 
have extended part of the highway north of 
591 where it is largely for local use for 
summer cottages and others. It goes to Sur- 
prise Lake Narrows as a secondary highway. 

It does seem to me that Dog Lake would 
be the natiu-al terminal of such a highway. 
It also seems to me in terms of potential 
development, both of a present tourist resort 
and other possible resort development on 
Dog Lake, it would make sense for this min- 
istry to give positive consideration to extend- 
ing that road as a development road. 

I was wondering whether the ministry or 
any officials have responded to my corres- 
pondence internally and whether or not the 
minister might give favourable consideration 
to that extent, 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr, Chairman, I will 
get some answers. 

Mr. Foulds: While you are getting some 
answers, one of the other members of the 
Legislature could change topics. 

Mr. Martel: While the answer is being 
prepared, I want to talk to the minister. I 
overheard him on my squawk box talking 
about the sale of crown land and I can't 
understand what the government is doing. 

On May 4, 1978, a resolution by h's col- 
league, the member for Timiskaming (Mr. 
HavTot) was almost unanimously accepted 
in this House that we wouldn't sell crowTi 
land to Americans or nonresidents; it wo'dd 
be sold only to landed immigrants and Cana- 
dian citizens. The people who spoke in that 
debate were the members for Nipissing (Mr. 
Bolan), Middlesex (Mr, Eaton), Algoma (Mr, 
Wildman), Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling , 
Rainv River (Mr. T. P. Reid) and Beachps- 
A\'^oodbine (Ms. Bryden) and I. 

Mr. Roy: What does the member for Car- 
leton-Grenville know about northern On- 
tario? 

Mr. Martel: Only the member for Middlesex 
and, interestingly enough, the member for 
Rainy River spoke against that resolution. 

Mr. Roy: We allow freedom in this party. 

Mr. Martel: Yes, I know. That is why your 
colleague today moved the bill with respect 
to the sale of agricultural land to non-Cana- 
dian, You can't have it both ways. 

Mr. Roy: There is no problem. 

Mr. Martel: What bothers me is there is a 
funny history going here on what we intend 
to do in this province with respect to crown 
land in northern Ontario. 

In 1973, an all-party committee proposed 
that future land transactions be limited to 



MAY 29. 1979 



2339 



Canadians and landed immigrants. This re- 
port, by the way, was signed by the present 
Minister of Agriculture and Food'. He knows 
well what the member for Huron- Middlesex 
(Mr. Riddell) speaks of because as a back- 
bencher in those days he opposed the sale of 
crown land and also agricultural land. He 
signed that report. In 1974, contrary to the 
select committee report, the government 
brought in a 20 per cent land transfer tax. 
In 1976, two years later, the government 
decided this was no longer a problem. In 
1977, in the spring, the government lifted the 
20 per cent tax, despite the fact the govern- 
ment had not determined the extent to which 
foreign ownership had become a problem. 

/We studied it for 18 months. When you 
were minister of Natiural Resources, your 
legal staff provided us with some of the back- 
ground which led the select committee to 
make the type of recommendation it did. 
Then on March 2, 1978, the then minister, 
who is now the Treasiurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), 
announced a new government policy. It said 
that in the first year only residents of Ontario 
could buy, in the second year residents of 
Canada could also buy or lease, and in the 
third year nonresidents were allowed only to 
lease. 

The minister himself is opposed because 
on Februar>' 28, 1978, he was apparently at 
odds with the present Treasurer who wfis then 
the Minister of Natural Resources. About two 
months later, on May 4, his colleague &e 
member for Timiskaming introduced a resolu- 
tion in this Legislature. I will read it for the 
minister: **ResoIved: That in the opinion of 
this House the government should give con- 
sideration to legislation diat would prohibit 
the transfer of leased crown lots in the prov- 
ince of Ontario to anyone other than Cana- 
dian citizens." 

That vote carried. In the face of that vote, 
the go\'ernment went its merry way as though 
the Legislature had not spoken at all. I can 
no longer understand what votes m^im in this 
House when it is so flagrant that the minister's 
own colleague, the membCT for Timiskaming, 
jrets a resolution through the House, and 
then the government says: **To hell with it. 
It doesn't matter what the House has said. 
We'll go our merry way." The then minister 
used some cockeyed excuse that we will get 
more development in the north if we sell the 
land. But that's not a factor. The minister and 
I both know that as soon as lots become 
available on a lake they are grabbed up, by 
lease or any other way. 

There's no problem? Well, there were 
fewer than 200, and they were up in Polar 
Bear Park, or near it. But the land around 



the city of Sudbury, the land in the minister's 
area, as quickly as it came up for lease, was 
being taken up. 

Mr. Wildman: There weren't enough lots. 

Mr. Martel: That is the key problem facing 
us in the north. There are not enough cottage 
lots available. 

An hon. member: What's the member's 
position? 

Mr. Martel: Mine? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Talk to yom" colleague 
behind you; get in step with him. You're both 
out of step. 

Mr. Martel: My colleague and I, and my 
colleague from Sudbury (Mr. Gemia), sat on 
one of the committees which, when the min- 
ister was Minister of Natural Resources, he 
had in the various areas. We got a motion 
through that we would not build all around 
a lake but we would create subdivisions with 
the proper type of environmental controls and 
leave the lakefront for the people. 

The problem is not one of selling land so 
that we encourage cottage development; the 
problem is insuflBcient land. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: OhI 

iMr. Martel: Coming on stream from the 
Ministry of Natural Resources? There is not 
nearly enough. Anything the ministry could 
chum out in the Sudbiury area would be grab- 
bed up so quickly it is not even fuimy. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: You're not a northerner 
when you talk like that. You talk like you're 
from southern Ontario. 

Mr. Foulds: How many cottage lots does 
the government have available? 

Mr. Martel: In the Sudbury district there 
are 25 or -30 lots coming out this year. The 
problem is not what the then minister, now 
the Treasurer, said. He said we did not have 
construction because people would not take 
leased land to put a cottage on. That is not 
the case at all; the minister knows it and I 
know it. To refresh his memory, the minister 
himself, on February 28, 1978, opposed that 
position taken by the then Minister of Nat- 
ural Resources, now the Treasurer. It indi- 
cated to me how much clout the minister 
has as the minister responsible for northern 
Ontario when the line minister was able to 
beat him down. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: No way. 

Mr. Martel: The minister opposed his col- 
league's proposals. On February 28, 1978, 
he indicated he did not agree with the then 
Minister of Natural Resources. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: For selling land? 



2340 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Mr. Martel: Yes. The minister was pre- 
pared to lease it. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: You are entirely wrong; 
you are o£F base. 

Mr. Foulds: You were misquoted before 
you made that statement, were you? 

Mr. Martel: Was the minister misquoted? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I have always been in 
favour of the sale of cottage lots. 

Mr. Martel: The minister changed his 
mind again, but that is not unusual. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I haven't changed my 
mind. 

Mr. Martel: The important matter is that 
this House voted against that and voted to 
support the minister's colleague's resolution. 
My question is: Where does the cabinet get 
off in going against the majority of this 
House? Let me tell you who was in the 
House when we voted on that. We know 
from their interjections — they didn't take 
part — but we know from their interjections 
that there were quite a number of cabinet 
ministers here; Baetz, Miller, Norton, my 
friend the late John Rhodes, Bob Welch, 
they were here. You just look at the inter- 
jections when that debate was going on 
and you know they were in the House. How 
do you do it? Does this Legislature and what 
it passes mean nothing? 

Mr. Roy: I guess not. 

Mr. Martel: The government simply says, 
**We don't care what the House voted; we 
are simply going to proceed anyway." 

Mr. Roy: I guess we know who the boss 
is. 

Mr. Martel: What kind of hypocrisy is 
that? That is too much, and I want to tell 
the minister, it would do him the world of 
good to go back to the Ministry of Natural 
Resources and find out what the opinion is 
over there because there was almost a blood- 
letting at that time going on in there. The 
civil servants, to their credit, did not want 
to proceed with this. 

Mr. Wildman: That is right. 

Mr. Martel: They didn't, because they 
could see that the material that your friend 
was bringing forth was total nonsense. If 
you want to say, "We simply believe in the 
sale of crown land," that is fine, but I remind 
you that it was your government that set up 
the select committee to study these problems, 
and your colleague who sits to your imme- 
diate left signed that. 

I can't see how you can play around with 
everything that says that to the south of us, 
within 100 miles of our border, there are 
roughly 100 million Americans looking for 



land. They have also got more disposable 
income than we have, so that in fact they 
can come up here and buy land. They are 
driving up the price of land. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are only leasing. 

Mr. Martel: They are leasing. You can't 
even stop that. Have you looked at what is 
happening to the lease of crown land, the 
proportions it is reaching now? It costs $500 
and $600 a year to lease a piece of property 
Do you know what that means to the average 
worker who tries to lease land at that price? 
It is nuts. You are simply taking Canadians 
and Ontarians out of the realm of even get- 
ting a cottage, and the more you allow this 
to continue the worse it is going to become. 

I think it is time the minister, who talks 
about protecting us in northern Ontario, 
did something about it and I think it is time 
he looked at that resolution and took this 
House seriously, because he can't have it 
both ways. 

Mr. Laughren: You are making a lot of 
sense. 

Mr. Martel: Thank you. My friend — from 
what riding? Thank you. 

Mr. Laughren: Socialists make a lot of 
sense. 

Mr. Lane: It's hard to detect sometimes, 
though. 

Mr. Martel: Where did you vote on that 
resolution? If I recall correctly, you sup- 
ported that resolution. 

Mr. Lane: I voted the right way. 

Mr. Martel: You supported that resolution 
on that occasion. 

Mr. Roy: You don't have to compromise 
yourself, John. 

Mr. Martel: Right. You supported your 
rolleague's resolution. 

Mr. Roy: Take the fifth amendment. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: We believe in owner- 
ship on this side. 

Mr. Martel: But you didn't \'ote that \\ay. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, I did. 

Mr. Martel: No, you didn't. No. That min- 
ister was misquoted then on February 28, 
1978. You are always misquoted, Leo; you 
are always in a fog, even when you are 
fogged in. 

But, I just tell you that the government 
has changed its position with respect to 
crown land in northern Ontario in 1973, 
1974, 1976, 1977 and 1978. What goes on 
over there? That is six changes of position 
from 1973 to 1978. 

Mr. Foulds: You wonld think Stuart Smirh 
was in the cabinet. 



MAY 29, 1979 



2341 



Mr. Martel: You would think it \va.^ a 
Liberal cabinet. 

Mr. Roy: Hell, we are eonsistent com- 
pared to that. 

Nfr. Martel: Yes, you only change once a 
day. 

Hon. Mr. Beniier: You said that. I didn't. 

Mr. Martel: It really bothers me that > ou 
pay no attention to what the needs are. I 
would think the minister, in fact, should be 
honouring that resolution and be working to 
get sulxlivisions somewhat a little back from 
the waterfront, so that we could provide the 
services which would prevent the watenva> j 
from becoming polluted, and that would 
lead to the type of financial do\clopment we 
want in terms of small businesses both sell- 
ing and building some cottages for people 
in northern Ontario. If the government pro- 
ceeded in that wa>', we would have that 
t\pe of economy which would help northern 
Ontario. 

[S:45] 

By restricting the number of lots that 
come on stream and b>' opening them up to 
other than Canidians. the governmcit is 
making it impossible for Canadians to be 
in the ball game. The minister should go 
back and read the select committee's report 
because it was relevant in 1974 and it is 
still relevant today. The minister wh > is 
leadine the way should get on the ball and 
do something about it. 

Hon. Mr. Bcrnier: Mr. Chairman, if I ma> 
respond to the member for Port Arthur, 
with respect to highway 589, we do not 
have the details of diat access road with us 
at the present time, but I will get th:^ 
answers to the member's inquiry and report 
back to him directly. 

Mr. Foulds: I think the important thing 
for his ministry to keep in mind, in con- 
sidering the development of a road such as 
this, is not merely the present traffij flow, 
which is the framework within which (he 
Ministr\' of Transportation and Communica- 
tions has to operate, but it should look at that 
in terms of the potential of developing the 
road to a good standard for tourism, for local 
use and for any other possible development. 
I don't know what other possible develop- 
ment there might be, but I think it does 
make some sense in the case of a three-mile 
stretch of road, of which there is already a 
base, to use that as a possibility for a modest 
northern development road. 

I put it to the minister in these terms. I 
thought I had put it to him in those terms in 
my letter in March. I have obtained addi- 



tional information from MTC, which I have 
forwarded to the ministry within the Ya^t 
week or so. I would like them to look at 
that and to look at what MTC is doing, 
along with the local roads board, to see if 
there is some kind of arrangement that can 
be made that would make that a sensible 
pioject. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would be glad to ».lo 
that. In reply to the member for Sudbury 
East, it seems to me I have heard his speech 
on crown lands so many times now I am 
confused. I don't know whether he is in 
right field or left field or far-left field or in 
the ballpark at all. 

Mr. Martel: I haven't changed my posi- 
tion at all. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He is crossing back 
and forth all the time. 

Mr. Martel: I have never changed my 
position— not once. 

Mr. Foulds: You can say many things 
aliout the member for Sudbury East but you 
can't say that. 

Mr. Chairman: Order. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I must say my position 
has not changed. I think crown cottage lots 
should be sold to Ontario residents first, 
Canadian residents second and leased to 
nonresidents. I think that is a very fair and 
positive policy and one that will allow On- 
tarians to own a summer cottage. Owner- 
ship is the key. That is the difference in our 
piilitical philosophies. 

Mr. Martel: You are going to eat some 
(ii >'our \\ords. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The members of the 
tliird p.irt>- want 1)ig goxernment to hang on. 
Xinet\ per cent of the land mass and 10 per 
cent of the population are north of the 
French River, and you do not want to give 
up any bit of it. If you were the govern- 
ment, you wouldn't give up anything; >-oi! 
would own everything. 

Mr. Foulds: That is just not true. It is com- 
plete balderdash. You might even be mis- 
leading the House. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We don't believe that. 
We believe in encouraging private initiative, 
individual initiative and pride in ownership. 
The members of the third party like to ovm 
their own homes in their communities. They 
like to own their ovm cars. They like their 
ownership. They take pride in that. Why 
shouldn't somebody having a summer cottage 
do the same thing? Don't worry about the 
pollution because the Ministry of the Environ- 
ment has all the rules and regulations. 



28lt2 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Mr. Foulds: The minister knows that is not 
right. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: The health unit is there 
asd is controlling those septic tanks. 

Mr. Foulds: You don't have enough lots 
because you can't meet their standards, mini- 
mtim as they are. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They are all in place. 
Don't come around here and say we shouldn't 
be doing these things. If we are going to do 
something for northern Ontario, there is 
nothing better and there is no simpler way 
di creating development and economic move- 
ment than to encourage development of sum- 
mer cottage lots. 

If the member for Sudbury East, as a 
northerner, really moves around the north and 
talks to northerners, what is the second thing 
they want besides their home? 

Mr. Martel: A cottage. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Exactly right, they want 
a cottage. They want to own a summer cot- 
tage beside the lake. 

Mr. Bradley: They want a change of 
government. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There are 250,000 lakes 
in northern Ontario and the members opposite 
want us to preserve them and not to touch 
them. 

Mr. Foulds: How many cottage lots have 
you got? 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It's the law of supply 
and demand. 

Mr. Foulds: Oh no. 

Mr. Martel: Baloney. 

Mr. Foulds: \\niat's the supply? Have >ou 
forgotten so quickly since you left Natural 
Resources? 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have made it very 
clear to the Ministry of Natural Resources 
that if they required extra funds, we as the 
ministry would pro\ide them. We have been 
pro\iding them \Aith extra funds for cottage 
road development, for surveying of subdivi- 
sions in northern Ontario and we will con- 
tinue to do that to meet the supply and 
demand. It has to be there. I would like to 
see that proeram accelerated. I think it is a 
good program and it has to be accelerated to 
meet tlie demands of northerners. 

My God, we live up there, and if you and 
I as northerners can't own a summer cottage 
lot, then we might as well move down to 
southern Ontario, That's one of the amenities 
we ha\e as northerners, to own a summer 
cottage lot, and I see nothing wrong with 
that. 

The policy this government has is a fair and 



just one for today's society and for future 
generations. 

Mr. Martel: Oh, yes. With respect to this 
big platitudte about the difference between us 
and the minister over there, let me quote 
from the 1971 throne speech. He supported 
that. Now listen to what it says witli respect 
to the matter. 

"To further preserve our heritage, crown 
lands will henceforth be made available only 
on lease basis." That was in the 1971 throne 
speech. Does the minister recall it? Don't tell 
me about the difference between yx)u and us. 
That's your throne speech. 

Mr. Foulds: Who was the Premier then? 

Mr. Martel: Let me go on. 

Mr. Foulds: That was Davis's first throne 
speech. 

Mr. Martel: The minister supported the 
budget speech of 1974. 

Mr. Laughren: So did the Liberal Party. 
iMr. Martel: It says, "In examining the 
rapidly rising prices for real property in On- 
tario, it has become increasingly apparent that 
large-scale acquisition of land by nonresidents 
of Canada is a significant factor." I didn't say 
that, the Premier wrote that speech- 
Mr. Foulds: No, no, it was the Treasurer. 

Mr. Martel: —in conjunction with the 
Treasurer. And they got somebody to read it. 
The Treasurer didn't write it. He just went 
along with it. 

Mr. Foulds: It's Claire Hoy. 

Mr. Martel: That was the budget in 1974. 
But if that isn't enough, let's try the "Duke 
of Kent." In 1976, Mr. McKeough made an 
inspiring statement. Listen to what the duke 
said then, in spite of an armoimcement in 
October: ". . . would develop a monitoring 
system which will regularly produce a com- 
plete list of land ownership in Ontario." And 
that hasn't been done. 

The minister gets up here with all of that 
claptrap he just went through a few minutes 
ago: yet those are the different positions 
taken by his government to determine what 
was happening to land. In fact, they said 
that to retain our heritage, we would have 
to lease the "land. Then they reinforced it. 
They said it had now become apparent that 
too much land was l)eing purchased h>' other 
than Canadians or landed immi^jrants. Two 
\'ears later, the government is going to set 
up a monitoring system to determine where 
the land is going and who is buying it. It 
hasn't been done. 

Then he has the effrontery ito stand up 
there and spout that claptrap and say that's 
the difference between him and us. Can he 



MAY 29, 1979 



2343 



tell me what changed his mind on all those 
occasions? How can he move tweedledum, 
tweedledee and back to tweedledum when- 
ever it is convenient? Tonight he gets up 
and says, "It's a case of supply and demand." 
I want to tell you, Xfr. Chairman, the prob- 
lem of getting cottage land in Ontario isn't 
a case of leasing, it's a case of not enough 
being prepared to put on the market. You 
know it and I know it. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: You said that. 

Mr. Martel: No. no. The minister said we 
would put some more on. He said, the "pride 
of ownership." As quickly as he puts land on 
the market for sale people are lining up and 
are still lining up to buy it and put their 
cottages on it. What has changed? 

Mr. Foulds: You can't even put on 500 
a year, and you know it. 

Mr. Martel: What has changed the govern- 
ment's mind after those t>'pes of statements 
in two throne speeches and the budget 
speech? Tliey want it every way, but they 
can't have it. They always come back to that 
line, "Well, the diflperence between us and 
you is that you want big government." 

Wbo has been in power all these years? 
The minister says we want big government. 
If the government has a lot of problems, they 
have been the authors. They have been in 
power all those years. 

Mr. Foulds: Who created big government? 
You're the biggest one of them all. 

Mr. Martel: They created a whole ministry 
for him. 

Mr. Laughren: That's big government. 

Mr. Martel: It's big government that can 
aflFord to create a ministry to be a PR agency 
for the line ministries. And the minister gets 
up here with this nonsense. But tell me why, 
all of a sudden, these things which were 
said and announced don't matter anymore. 

Does the minister know where the land 
is going? Does he know who's getting the 
leases- 
Mr. Laughren: That's business. 

Mr. Martel: —or how they're being trans- 
ferred from a citizen of Ontario to an Ameri- 
can after a year or two? Does he have any 
monitoring sysltems? 

We paid over $2 million for a select com- 
mittee on economic nationalism and it in- 
cluded a land study. The government hasn't 
paid one iota of recognition to the work done 
by that select committee. Nothing. It's just 
ignored it. In fact, if one listens to the Minis- 
ter of Industry and Tourism as he gives the 
bundle away, he flies in the face of the four- 



year study which says all they want is a port- 
folio investment, not equity. 

There are 21 reports which say that and 
they're not all done by the select committee; 
nine of them were done by Kates, Peat, 
Marwick. 

The government is undercutting any prox>er 
development of this province and that's why 
we have 325,000 people unemployed; that's 
why we have trade deficits galore; that's why 
we're in the lousy mess we're in. 

Mr. Laughren: Put on your clown suit, 
Leo. 

Mr. Martel: I tell the minister he %vill get 

lip there- 
Mr. Laughren: Put on your clown suit, 

Leo, 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You guys are a bunch 
of phonies. 

Mr. Martel: Phonies? Look at the deficits. 
Look at the deficits in every field, whether 
it's mining equipment, you name it. 

Mr. Laughren: You and your wild rice. 

Mr. Martel: Whatever field you look at, 
Mr, Chairman, there's a trade deficit. And 
now it's land. There's a shortage of land. We 
knew it in 1971. The thing that led to that 
study was that the minister couldn't get a 
piece of land on Lake Erie— 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Get with reality. 

Mr. Martel: —and he still can't. We did 
four years of study, we had all these grand 
pronouncements and finally, a resolution from 
the member for Timiskaming. Why didn't the 
minister turn around and tell him that he's 
in favour of big government? Or his colleague 
for Algoma-Manitoulin who voted for it? Was 
he in favour of big government? 

Mr. Wildman: Do they not agree with your 
philosophy? 

Mr. Martel: The minister just rambles all 
over the place. The trouble with engaging 
in a debate with him is his only argument 
is a simplistic one. He gets up and says: "All 
you want is big government. And we have a 
different philosophy." 

Mr. Laughren: We're laughing at you, Leo. 

Mr. Martel: Why doesn't he get up and 
talk about the issues, tell me about these 
statements and what has changed, and tell 
me about why he spouts off that it's just 
this side of the House when the resolution 
came from the member for Timiskaming? 

Mr. Laughren: That's right. 

Mr. Martel: Tell me about that. Why did 
the member for Timiskaming move it? Why 



2344 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



did the member for Algoma-Manitoulin sup- 
port it? Because they see the sale of crown 
land. The member for Algoma-Mam'toulin is 
much closer to the border than the minister 
is and I suspect now he sees it because his 
island is predominantly owned by other than 
Canadians. 

Mr. Laughren: He's nodding in agreement. 

Mr. Martel: He understands that and he 
agrees with the resolution moved by his 
colleague, the member for Timiskaming. 
But the minister should tell them, too, that 
they just think in terms of big government, 
that there's a diflFerence between us and 
them. The minister believes in ownership. 
Why did they vote for it? Why did they 
move it? 

Why doesn't he talk about the issue instead 
of the blustering he always does? I go back 
a long way with him. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Who is blustering? Look 
in the mirror and see who is blustering. 

Mr. Martel: I remember talking to him 
about the whole field of mining and he told 
me I was all wet. But the Ham commission 
didn't say I was all wet, did it? The minister 
was the only blind one and he continues to be. 

Mr. Laughren: Go back to the Ham com- 
mission, Leo. 

Mr. Martel: Yes, go back. 

Mr. Laughren: Hide your head. 

Mr. Martel: We've always heard — 

Mr. Laughren: Go hide your head in 
shame. 

Mr. Martel: — we've always heard his 
blustering. 

Mr. Laughren: You set it up because you 
were forced to set it up. You were embar- 
rassed into it. You were ashamed. 

Mr. Martel: Right. The minister had no 
option. 

Mr. Laughren: You were stunned. 

Mr. Martel: And he told me I was all 
wrong about hearing. The Minister of Labour 
has now established a committee to look into 
the whole hearing problem, but I was all 
wrong. 

Interestingly enough, it was a hearing 
specialist who prepared most of my material. 
I didn't know what I was talking about but 
the hearing specialist did. And how he 
blustered, "You don't know what you're talk- 
ing about." 

Now there's a committee doing it. The 
minister should talk to the issues, tell us 
about why he's changed and never mind the 
blustering about my political philosophy, be- 
cause it was his colleagues who moved it. 
And tell me why he's gone against the 



vote of this Legislature. Just for once, talk to 

the issue. 

[9:00] 

Mr. Laughren: Tell the truth, Leo. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It's very simple. The 
government, in its wisdom, has decided this 
is the route we're going to go. This is a 
responsible government. We've decided that 
a summer cottage lot, which is nothing com- 
parable to the huge landholdings of the mem- 
ber for Algoma-Manitoulin, or the Algoma 
Central Railroad, it's nothing compared with 
that— 

Mr. Martel: We're not talking about that. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That's what you're com- 
paring it with. 

Mr. Martel: No, I'm not. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: That's what you're com- 
paring it with. That's what you're talking 
about. That's the fear you've got. You would 
deny an Ontario resident, a Canadian resi- 
dent, ownership to a summer cottage lot. 
You would. That's what you're doing. You 
would deny that simple right of an Ontario 
resident. The government in its wisdom has 
seen fit and that's it. 

Mr. Martel: They moved it. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It's plain and simple. 
It's been documented and the route we're 
going \\as in the throne speech. We're going 
in that direction because we think it's the 
right way. It's the way to go, too, if you're 
going to provide development in northern 
Ontario and do the things we want in north- 
ern Ontario. People would sell their homes 
before they would sell their summer cottage 
lots in northern Ontario. 

Mr. Laughren: We're not asking them to. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It's there. It's in place 
and I think ownership is the right way to 
go, particularly as it relates to a small sum- 
mer cottage lot. I'm sure the members sitting 
behind you agree with that philosophy and 
not with yours. 

Mr. Wildman: I just want to raise one very 
important matter. The member who sits be- 
hind the minister introduced the resolution 
and the minister is rejecting that. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Are you against owner- 
ship of the summer cottage lots? 

Mr. Wildman: I raised with you perma- 
nent residence lots and it seems to me ridicu- 
lous for you to be selling cottage lots when 
permanent residents can't get any residence 
lots in my area. When you can deal with 
that, then I'll talk about cottage lots. 

The one problem with what you're doing 
with cottage lots and why the ministry was 
opposed to what the present Treasurer was 



MAY 29, 1979 



2345 



introducing, is that two years after you sell 
the lots to the Ontario or Canadian residents, 
you have absolutely no control over what 
they do with it. All that has to happen is 
for some American developer to come in and 
buy up a whole lot of these lots, develop 
them, sell them as condominiums or some- 
thing to nonresidents, and there is nothing 
you can do about it. If there is something 
you can do about it, tell me. Tell me how 
you're monitoring what is happening with 
the lots being sold? Are you monitoring? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: The member is totally 
missing the point. When those summer cot- 
tage lots are sold to an Ontario resident, 
there are certain requirements he must live 
up to and one is he must expend a certain 
amount of funds to develop that. That is the 
economic development and stimulus we want 
in northern Ontario. 

Mr. Wildman: That was also required 
when you leased it. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: We believe ownership 
should be supreme, there should be no en- 
cumbrances or no encroachments or attach- 
ments to that ownership at all. 

Mr. Martel: And after two years? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: The Ontario eo\em- 
ment has always prided itself that when it 
gives ouTiership it's ownership in fee simple. 
It's there to use any way you see fit. That's 
the tvT^e of freedom we look to on this side 
of the House. 

\fr. Martel: You \'Oted for it. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I'm not answerine for 
them. Let them answer for themselves. 
They're big enough to answer for themselves. 

Mr. Chairman: Order. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I'm not going to sit 
here and answer for them. I'm telling you 
what the government pohcy is today. That's 
what it is and it's the right one. You'll be 
on the bandwagon in a short period of time 
supporting that policy. 

Mr. Martel: Xo, I won't. 

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps we should put it 
in a little bit of perspective. We had a 
policy in Ontario that was working and that 
policy was people would lease cottage land, 
would lease lakefront land. It was working. 

Mr. Wildman: It's just that you weren't 
putting enough lots on the market. 

Mr. Laughren: At the present time, and 
even in those days, whatever number of lois 
the Ministry of Natural Resources in north- 
ern Ontario put on the market were gobbled 
up faster than the ministry would put them 
on the market. There was no question there 



were not enough lots being sold. There was a 
l.neup. E\cr>- time a subdivision on a lake 
was developed, every time it went to auction, 
or whatever, the lineup was mucli greater 
than the availabilit\' of lots. The minister 
can't deny that. 

Mr. Wildman: They had to have lotteries. 

Mr. Laughren: That's why they had to 
ha\e lotteries as to who would buy the lots, 
as to who would get the lots. The minister 
can't deny that. If the minister denies that, 
he is, quite frankly, lying. Everyone knows 
there are not enough lakefront lots available 
in northern Ontario to supply the demand by 
Ontario residents. 

Given that, how does the minister justify 
putting lots on the market that can be ^iold 
to nonresidents if there are not enough lots 
a\ailable for Ontario Canadian residents? I 
don't know how the minister can justify that. 
We had a system that made sense. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: It didn't make sense. 

Mr. Laughren: Perhaps the minister could 
tell us why it didn't make sense. There was 
control over the development of lakes. There 
were not enough lake lots available for On- 
tario or for any Canadian residents. Yet 
now the minister is saying we are going to 
sell them. By doing that— this is what ttie 
minister is saying— he is admitting he v/ill 
sell them to Canadian residents who will in 
turn be free to sell them to American resi- 
dents. That is what the minister is saying, 
as though there was not enough demand 
by Ontario residents for those same lots. 

Is he really trying to tell us there are 
not enough Ontario and Canadian residents 
who want to buy lakefront lots in Ontario? 
If he is not saying that, then I wonder 
what— 

Mr. Lane: A point of order, Mr. Chair- 
man: I don't think cottage lots come under 
the Minister of Northern Affairs or this vote. 

Mr. Laughren: Well, project development. 

Mr. Martel: Project development. 

Mr. Lane: I don't think the Ham com- 
mission comes under this vote or this min- 
istry either. I would like to know how a 
minority on the opposite side of the House 
can force a majority government into bring- 
ing in the Ham report. 

Mr. Roy: Is he the minister of northern 
Ontiirio or is he not? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Good point. 

Mr. Lane: What is wrong? Are there not 
enough things the Minister of Northern Af- 
fairs is responsible for that you can talk to 
him throughout the evening about his min- 



2346 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



istry? I think the whole thing is out of 
order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wildman: It says here in the briefing 
notes under "Project development and im- 
plementation"— 702, item 2— that this min- 
istry: "negotiates with other ministries and 
other levels of government various programs 
in their cost sharing." If this is not a govern- 
ment program carried out by another min- 
istry, I don't know what is. So this should 
apply here. We can discuss this as a gov- 
ernment program and it has been carried out 
by another ministry. 

Mr. Roy: Right. You don't need a haircut, 
Bud. 

Mr. Laughren: The last thing the member 
for Algoma needs today is a haircut. 

Mr. Lane: I asked for his barber's name 
so I wouldn't go to the same one, but he 
wouldn't give me his name. 

Mr. Martel: He might take your mous- 
tache, John. 

Mr. Laughren: It really was unusual for 
the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, who 
supported the bill of the member for Timis- 
kaming, to get up and defend the minister 
who is in trouble on this issue. 

The minister had to distort the debate, 
didn't he? He is having problems responding 
to the points made by the opposition. 

Mr. Lane: Why don't we talk about that 
in Natural Resources when it comes up? I 
want to talk about that under the proper 
ministry when it comes up. 

Mr. Laughren: This is the proper ministry. 

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the member for 
Nickel Belt, if he wants to continue, would 
address his remarks through the chair? 

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
I will do that. I would just say the member 
for Algoma-Manitoulin surely was being face- 
tious when he said the government in a 
majority situation would not have set up the 
Ham commission because of pressure by the 
opposition. 

Perhaps the member for Algoma-Manitoulin 
is feeling somewhat guilty about his own role 
in the plight of miners of Elliot Lake, because 
that happens to be in his riding. He should 
hide his head in shame, and so should the 
Minister of Northern Affairs. You both played 
roles shameful for a member of the govern- 
ment, and you know it. That is why you 
brought in the Ham commission, and' you 
know it. 

Hod. Mr. Bemier: You have stopped more 
jobs in northern Ontario, that gang of yours— 

Mr. Laughren: We have saved naore lives 
too. 



Mr. Foulds: What jobs have you created? 
Name one that we stopped. Name one. 

Mr. Chairman: Order. Order. Could the 
honourable minister and the member for Port 
Arthur contain themselves and listen to the 
member for Nickel Belt? 

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Perhaps in your role as chairman, you could 
tell us first of all which party has formed 
the government for the last 35 years. Second- 
ly, could you say what number of those years 
there's been a minority government and how 
it is that the minister can blame a minority 
situation— particularly the third party— for 
costing jobs in northern Ontario when it's his 
government that's the architect of misfortune 
in northern Ontario? As a matter of fact the 
chamber of commerce in Sudbury put it all 
together when they described tiie role of 
this government as a profile in failure. 

If anybody personifies that, it's the Minister 
of Northern Affairs, formerly Minister of 
Natural Resources. The Minister of Northern 
Affairs is not serving northern Ontario well, 
and he is not serving the province as a whole 
well, when he will take a program that is— 

Mr. Lane: That's not a fact and you know 
it. 

Mr. Laughren: He is the minister of red 
tape for northern Ontario. That's all he is. 

Mr. Lane: Tliat party is always crying 
about what it didn't get and it wants a good 
piece of Northern Affairs, and it is getting a 
good piece of— 

Mr. Chairman: Order, order. 

Mr. Lane: I raised a point of order a while 
ago saying this is not the vote we're on and 
it's not the minister we're on. Are you going 
to rule on it or not? 

Mr. Chairman: Order, order. 

Mr. Lane: Are you going to rule on the 
point of ordter or not? 

Mr. Chairman: Order, order. 

\fr. Roy: You're very close to contempt, 
John. 

Mr. Chairman: I appreciate the comment 
made by the honourable member and the 
point of order. We are now doing the esti- 
mates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs, 
item 702-2, project development and imple- 
mentation. I believe if the minister in reply 
wishes to state that he has nothing to do 
with it, I'd be very happy to hear that. 

Mr. Bolan: Wait your turn, John. 

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
Perhaps the next time the member for 
Algoma-Manitoulin feels the need to intervene 
he could tell us why he supported the bill by 



MAY 29, 1979 



2347 



the member for Timiskaming in the first 
place. 

Nfr. Chairman: Perhaps the honourable 
member would return to the estimates. 

Mr. Laughren: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am 
asking you if you could ask the member for 
Algoma-Manitoulin if he could explain to 
the Legislature why it is that he felt com- 
pelled to support the member for Timiska- 
ming — 

Mr. Lane: I'm going to talk about that in 
the Ministry of Natural Resources. 

Mr. Laughren: — because it is a policy 
that affects northern Ontario in particular, 
Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Lane: I'm going to talk about it when 
the proper ministry is before us. 

Mr. Foulds: You're in good form toni^t. 

Mr. Laughren: It's with a great deal of 
restraint that I confine my remarks and make 
them as brief as I have. 

The Minister of Northern Affairs has not 
done his job. He is supposed to be a co- 
ordinating ministry. When we as sitting 
members talk to the other ministries of the 
government and we mention Northern Affairs 
to them, they all shrivel up and — 

Mr. Roy: Do they smile? 

Mr. Laughren: They either laugh or they 
shrivel up. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: You would like to be- 
lieve that. 

Mr. Laughren: The other ministries just 
feel that the Ministry of Northern Affairs is 
nothing but an impediment to the develop- 
ment of northern Ontario. 

Mr. Roy: And they say, "ah yes, sure." 

Mr. Laughren: Because quite hankly, all 
of the policies over which the Minister of 
Northern Affairs has any kind of say are 
already in place in other ministries of the 
government. 

There's no better example of how this 
minister is selling out northern Ontario than 
in his policy with lots on lakefronts. He sold 
out the mineral and lumber resources of 
northern Ontario and now he has moved 
into a position where he can sell out the 
lakefront lots of northern Ontario. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Chairman, Tve said 
it before, and Fm going to say it again about 
the attitude of the member for Nickel Belt, 
the bell rings loud and clear. It's been ring- 
inc: that way since the last election. 

Mr. Laughren: Put on your clown suit, 
Leo. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Northern Ontario was 
the playground of the NDP. It was their 



bastion, it was their political base in northern 
Ontario. 

Mr. Wildman: The bell tolls for the Con- 
servative government. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: They said, "We have 
things under control; they're all socialists up 
in northern Ontario; they belong to us; they 
belong to the NDP; we're going to take over 
and we're going to form the government 
from that northern Ontario base." Right? 

Mr. Laughren: Answer the questions. 
[9:15] 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: That's what you 
thought. What happened after the last 
election? The government formed the Minis- 
try of Northern Affairs. 

Mr. Roy: What do you mean? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: We took some action. 
We answered the needs of northern Ontario. 
We got input from northerners; we res- 
ponded to their requests. We came back with 
three seats. 

Mr. Bolan: I represent two. 

Interjections. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: You are not. I can tell 
you right now that you will lose two more 
seats in northern Ontario at the next election. 

Interjections. 

Mr. Martel: Oh, yes. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I won't tell you. You 
know. 

Mr. Foulds: Do you want to place a Httle 
bet on that? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: No. The Liberal Party 
now has two seats and I think we will 
leave them with two. We should have a little 
opposition, but you will lose two more. 

Mr. Roy: We're going to get more, when 
we've got quality members like we've got. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier; The base is gone. You 
know it and I know it. 

Mr. Laughren: Answer the question. Al- 
ways the clown. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The old political base, 
that old attitude that you people had about 
northern Ontario being in your hip pocket, 
is not there any more, fellows, it is gone. 

Mr. Foulds: It is not in your hip pocket, 
either. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: No, it is not in mine. It 
is gone. 

Interjections. 

Mr. Chairman: Order, order. I would like 
to remind the members— 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: You're going to bleed 
a lot more before we are finished with you. 



2348 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Mr. Chairman: I would like to remind the 
members that we have an hour and 15 
minutes. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I just want to say what 
our role is— pardon me? 

Mr. Martel: Back to the issue now. It's 
crown land, if you've forgotten. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You had to hear that; 
you wanted to hear that. 

Mr. Ashe: Tell him for 15 minutes and 
call it a night. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Our role is simply to 
co-ordinate and to bring to the attention of 
other ministries the specific needs, the unique 
needs of northern Ontario residents. Certainly 
our eflForts in working very closely with the 
Ministry of Natural Resources as it relates 
to the development of summer cottage lots 
won't be all on the waterfront. They won't 
be all on the waterfront. They can't be. 

Mr. Laughren: Why sell to the Americans 
then? 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We believe in your 
concept of cluster development; I think that 
makes sense. No question about that. We 
will provide funds from our budget for the 
development of properly planned summer 
cottage subdivisions that relate to the lake, 
after a lake survey has been taken. 

We are not going to repeat the problems 
of Lake Simcoe or Lake Erie in northern 
Ontario— not at all; we don't intend to do 
that. But there is Still lots of room for de- 
velopment of summer cottage lots- 
Mr. Martel: We are not saying there isn't. 
Hon. Mr. Bernier: —and selling them to 
residents of Ontario and residents of Canada. 

Mr. Laughren: Oh, that's a red herring. 
That's not what you are selling to the 
Americans. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There is no problem 
with that. I have no difficulty living with it 
and neither do the residents of northern 
Ontario. 

Interjections. 

Mr. Haggerty: I want to address myself 
to vote 702, item 2. The explanatory note 
says: "The activities include the financial and 
program planning branch in Toronto and 
the regional and community development 
branches in Sudbury and Thunder Bay that 
perform the following functions," and it gives 
six or seven items there. 

My concern is about the first sentence I 
quoted here, "The activities include the finan- 
cial and program planning branch in To- 
ronto." That doesn't leave much for the 
northern communities to have some voice 



in the directions in which these commu- 
nities want to grow and develop, and par- 
ticularly as it relates, as the member for 
Nickel Belt said, to job creation. 

It goes on to say about one of the other 
areas "to explore and undertake, where feasi- 
ble, projects relating to the expansion of the 
economic base of the region." 

For some time now, Mr. Chairman, I have 
directed questions to the Ministry of Industry 
and Tourism and the Ministry of Natural Re- 
sources, tr\ang to get some definite answer 
in the matter of the Ministry of Natural 
Resources' report called A Nickel Policy for 
Ontario. There have been a number of pro- 
posals in that study and recommendation. 
One was to encourage the importation of 
Inco subsidiaries' technical and nickel manu- 
facturing expertise acquired through recent 
diversifications and not now employed in 
Canada, for the purpose of creating new 
industry and employment in Sudbury and 
perhaps in other areas throughout north- 
western Ontario. 

Just what steps has the ministry taken 
in this particular area to diversify the indus- 
try in the Sudbury basin and other nickel 
towns in Ontario, as to what directions have 
\ou given to Inco, and perhaps even to Fal- 
conbridge, to say that they must take further 
steps to refine or process other precious 
metals that arise out of the mining operations 
in the Sudbury basin? 

This is a matter that was discussed I think 
in some detail during thhe select committee 
dealing \^•ith the Inco layoflF. With the present 
situation as it is up in the Sudbury basin 
now, I thought perhaps the ministry had 
ample time to come tlirough with an eco- 
nomic study of that particular area, as it 
relates to the present labour dispute that has 
continued for some nine months. This, I 
suppose, should never have happened in the 
first place, but I don't think the government 
or even the Ministry of Labour has been 
very effective in getting a settlement to that 
labour dispute. 

Surely, now, there should be an economic 
study made in the Sudbury basin as to what 
impact the strike has had on that community 
and what impact this proposed nickel policy 
will have on communities in northern 
Ontario. I think it is long overdue in this 
particular area. 

We, on this side, would like to know just 
what direction this government is proposing 
to take in this area of encouraging further 
mining processing in Ontario. It has been an 
isue that has been kicked around here for a 
number of years and I think it is time for 
this government to state in which direction 



MAY 29, 1979 



2349 



they are heading; what new employment we 
can expect in northern Ontario. Could the 
minister reply to some of those questions and 
perhaps give us some clearcut direction as 
to which way the government is moving? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Chairman, I might 
say this matter has been discussed at some 
length in the earlier part of the examination 
of my ministry's estimates. But I would be 
glad' to review some of the things we are 
doing in the Sudbury area. 

Just to review: The 2001 conference that 
followed the layoflFs at the Inco plant last fall 
was by local initiative, with representatives 
brought together at the local level, whereby 
they would look at some diversification of 
their economic base. They required a certain 
amount of seed money. The meml^er will 
recall the Premier himself went to Sudbury 
and met with delegates of the 2001 confer- 
ence. I think it was a two- or three-day con- 
ference held at the university. I was pleased 
to attend the conference with the Premier. 
At that time he annnounced $600,000 would 
be allocated over a three->'ear period for that 
local group to look at their problems, to 
])ring the community together, in one direc- 
tion and try to work on some diversification 
of their economic base. That is moving ahead. 

In fact, the member for Sudbury and my 
colleague, the Minister of Government Serv- 
ices (Mr. Henderson) have just returned from 
the Sudl^ury basin where they were looking at 
the Burwash site for a development that may 
occur as a spinoff from the 2001 conference 
and that could employ up to 200 people in a 
field other than mining. That is well under- 
wa\-, that is moving ahead. 

We are subsidizing the development of an 
industrial park in the Sudbury basin known as 
the Walden Industrial Park. In previous years 
we have invested well over $2 million in it; 
this year $752,000 is allocated in these esti- 
mates for the further development of Walden 
Industrial Park. 

In addition to that we ha\e commissioned 
a study, again working with the people of the 
regional municipalit\' of Sudbury, to look at 
import substitution. The local people felt 
there were many products and items being 
usetl in the Sudbur>' basin and that whole 
general area, that could be grown or manu- 
factured right in their area. That study is 
moving ahead right now. We think there is 
good potential, because of the large popula- 
tion in the Sudbury area, to diversify the 
economic base. I must say that I am confident, 
with local involvement and local initiative, 
we will achieve some goals there. 

In connection with the controls of the 
export of raw ores, we have, under section 13 



of the Mining Act, if I recall correcdy, certain 
restrictions as to what one can export, where 
one can exportr— 

Mr. Haggerty: Exemptions, too. 

Hon. Mr. Bernitr: Yes, certain exemptions 
are allowed after \'ery careful examination, 
of course, of that application. Also, of course, 
the member is very Hi ,; h aware :)f the 30 
per cent incentive under the Mining Tax 
Act that saw the 'l: velopment of Texasgulf 
at Timmins. He ^ ■ i r( call very vividly the 
former member for Cochrane South standing 
up and going counter to his own colleagues 
on that particular issue. He wanted it; he 
knew what it meant to have that massive 
dtevelopment by Texasgulf. 

Mr. Foulds: That's one seat we're going to 
win back next time, too. Your member isn't 
going to hold it. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: We have fun kidding 
him about that. Every time I see him I re- 
mind him of it. It depends where you're sit- 
ting, but he felt very uncomfortable during 
those discussions. Nevertheless, Texasgulf is 
going there and putting in furtlier diversifi- 
cation of the development to refine it's ores 
in the Timmins area. The steel-rolling mill 
in Sudbury is also moving ahead; Inco is 
developing one there. 

To go back to my earlier comments, the 
free enterprise systeni is at work. If there is 
a dollar to be made, if there is profit to be 
made as it compares to other world manu- 
facturers, I am sure we will get them there, 
through tax incentives and other incentives. 
Now that mv colleague the Ministry of In- 
dustry- and Tourism has come forward with 
the Employment Development Fund, I think 
we will see further activity in northern On- 
tario to broaden and diversify our economic 
base there. 

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate 
the minister's comments. But the question I 
was directing to him was about the nickel 
policy. One of the recommendations by the 
minister's task force was that there should 
be a platinum refin^'n' in Canada or in On- 
tario, and that relates to p • ious metals. Has 
the minister had an;- discua- n with Inco or 
Falconbridge to te" ihem that they must 
manufacture more o: their finished products 
here in Canada? 

In Huntington, Virginia, Inco has a large 
research centre. Inco also has a battery com- 
pany in the United Slates. We did not derive 
much benefit from the capital that left Can- 
ada to help purchase that batter>' company. 
We did not gain any jobs out of that; they 
all occurred in the United States. 



2350 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



All I am trying to convey to the minister is 
that it is time he sat down with Inco, or with 
any of the nickel companies in Ontario, and 
started to lay down some policy to them; to 
tell them that they must create additional 
jobs h'^re in Ontario. I am sure we are going 
to find out, after the strike is settled, that 
Inco is not going to employ the 12,000 
workers it had prior to the strike. 

Mr. Bolan: It is going to go down to 9,000. 

Mr. Haggerty: Yes. They will end up with 
about 9,000. A similar situation has occurred 
at Port Colborne, where they have had la- 
bour disputes over the years; emplo\Tnent has 
dropped considerably. I suggest to the min- 
ister that we are going to have problems in 
the Sudbury area. One can see it coming; if 
one follows all the testimony before the select 
committee, one can see that what the com- 
pany wanted originally was a reduction in 
manpower there. 

I can pretty well guess that what is going 
to happen after the labour dispute in Sud- 
burv is settled is that there will not be 12,000 
emplovees there, but 9,000. I think the com- 
pany has got what it wanted from this strike. 
I hope it does not happen, but it is almost a 
sure thing, if I correctlv interpret the testi- 
mony before the committee. I suggest to the 
minister that it is time somebody gave seme 
direction to Inco. They cannot call all the 
shots here. Government is going to have to 
take some action in this particular area. 

The minister's report is called A Nickel 
Policy for Ontario, and I would like to see 
something definite come out of that. The 
people in that area are looking for some 
direction from the government. I suppose 
that was their hope, that the government was 
working in this area. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Chairman, A Nickel 
Policy for Ontario is a Ministry of Natural 
Resources document. I am not aware where 
it stands at this time as to being totally ac- 
cepted by the government. The member 
might direct that question to the Minister of 
Natural Resources (Mr. Auld). 
[9:30] 

Mr. Haggerty: You're the policy man 
there. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: No, I'm not a policy 
man, No, it's a co-ordinating ministry; I'm 
not setting policy. I want to make that very, 
very clear. We don't set government policy. 
We do it as a government. 

Mr. Haggerty: Are you a consultant, Leo? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Very much so. I had 
discussions with the Inco people and the 
Falconbridge people when I had responsi- 



bility for the Ministry of Natural Resources. 
I had discussions with them on a '•'cry 
regular basis, doing just what you're sug- 
gesting, trying to lean on them as strongly 
as we could to have them refine— of course, 
they are refining— and maybe even fabricate 
more ores in Ontario. 

But I have to say to you— and I've said it 
before— that the world is getting smaller and 
smaller and smaller. As the Third World be- 
comes more developed, as more of the tech- 
nology and the expertise has become known 
to them, competition increases. I personally 
have certain reservations as to what will 
happen when the 700 million people in 
China start looking around their backyard 
when it comes to the development of their 
country. And it's going to happen. There's 
just no question. 

We've seen what's happened in Guate- 
mala. We've seen what's happened in 
Australia, in South America— all these places 
where they have large, rich mineral deposits 
are now being developed. We're producing 
the same amount of nickel as we were 
several years ago. At that time we had 95 
per cent of the world production. 

Mr. Wildman: E.xcept that Inco is devel- 
oping those ore deposits. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: But what's happened is 
now the world is using more nickel and 
they're getting that nickel from some oth.er 
place. 

Mr. Foulds: Developed at our expense. 

Mr. Wildman: With our taxpayers' money. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: That's the worldwide 
situation. We can't bury oiu: heads in the 
sand and say, "We're rich in resources: 
you've got to come to us for those resources." 
They don't have to come to us any more. 
There are resources all around the world. 

Mr. Foulds: That's because of 35 years 
of your government. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Japan has proved that. 
They don't have to come to Canada to get 
their nickel supply. 

Mr. Foulds: They go to Inco in other 
places. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I think we have to 
broaden our outlook. I think we have to 
become specialists in certain fields. I have a 
certain amount of feeling for the member 
for Sudbury East when he says we should 
be specialists, say, in mining equipment 
development. I have to agree with that. I 
don't argue with that. I think that's the kind 
of thing we should become specialists in. 

We've seen what's happened in Japan. 
They're specialists in the electronics field. 



MAY 29, 1979 



2351 



which we can't even touch. Other nations 
are specialists in their field. As Canadians 
that's the route we should be going, and 
we're going to have to go that route. 

Mr. Roy: Can I get in on this vote? 

xMr. Deputy Chairman: This is in connec- 
tion with vote 702, item 2. 

Mr. McClellan: Ask him about the Ottawa 
courthouse. 

Mr. Roy: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just in case 
some of m>- colleagues think I don't know 
what I'm talking about, I want to tell you 
that first of all- 
Mr. McClellan: I've never heard you talk 
about anything else. 

Mr. Roy: —when you're talking about the 
north, I come from some place in Saskatche- 
wan that's as far north as the communities 
\ou represent. I had the fortunate experience 
—the minister will be interested in this— as 
a law student to be working up in Dryden. 
Right in your own riding. I think IVe talked 
to you about that. I worked my summers up 
there. 

Mr. Foulds: Dr>'den has never recovered 
from it. 

Mr. Roy: I stand here not to be overly 
political towards this minister. And I won't 
i:uke any accusations that you were named 
minister strictly for political reasons— I won't 
sa> that. I have said it on other occasions. 
I;ut I won't say it here this evening. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: What did you say? I 
didn't hear that. 

Mr. Roy: What I do want to discuss with 
the minister is an area of the north which 
lie fi'presents, and that's the town of Dryden, 
and the unfortunate situation— the existin.? 
situation, I suppose— with Reed Limited. 

I want to tell you while I worked in 
Dryden I worked in the pulp and paper 
plant and then I worked in the back in the 
themical plant for a summer and a half. At 
that time— this was back in 1964-65—1 used 
to look around with a certain amount of 
concern. Pollution and the environment was 
not the issue it is today, but as we used to 
walk out of the plant I was aware of the 
smell when the wind was the wrong direc- 
tion over the town of Dryden. But more im- 
portant, we used to look at that pipe that 
was gushing out the waste into the Wa]:)i- 
goon River, at the suds and the colour of the 
water; and then you would look at the 
^^'a]1igoon River and follow along and see 
it was dead all the way through. 

Unfortunately, I suppose the blame can- 
not be attributed to any particular level of 
government because this has been going on 



now for a number of years. People had not 
realized the effects of it, but nevertheless it 
seems to me that certainly the people in- 
volved with Reed paper company had some 
knowledge of the damage they were causing. 

What I want to know from the minister is, 
having seen the waste, having seen the 
pollution, and having seen over the past 
years the approach taken by Reed — and 
we've seen it again recently when they were 
talking about the fact that if you enforced 
pollution controls, if you force them into a 
situation where they have to meet dead- 
hnes to cleanup their act sort of thing, 
there is that threat of closing down, of shut- 
ting down the town of Dryden. There is al- 
ways that implied threat: "If the criteria are 
too stringent we can't operate; and if we 
can't operate of course you're leaving Dry- 
den open, because there is very little indus- 
try that could take up the slack from 
Dryden." 

I want to ask the minister this, having 
in mind this implied threat, and having in 
mind that just recently the goverrmient 
turned down a request for funds — I don't 
know what the funds were for — 

Mr. Bolan: Funny money. 

Mr. Roy: Yes, we can call it funny money. 
Possibly we could supply it with my leader's 
application form, which I thought was right 
on for this type of project. 

Having in mind that this has been turned 
down, what is the situation in Dryden? I 
would think this would be an area that not 
only as the minister of the north but as a 
member for that area, he could tell us 
whether the people of Dryden are still living 
in fear of this plant announcing somewhere 
down the line that they're shutting down 
operations. That's the first thing I want to 
know. 

Second, I want to know what steps did 
you take as minister of the north, and as 
member for that area, to attempt to diversify 
the econom>' of an area like Dryden? WTiat 
alternati\es ha\'e been proposed? Do vou 
have any plans in mind about bringing other 
businesses or other plants or something else 
to replace it? 

Hon. Mr. Snow: A new courthouse. 

Mr. Roy: A new courthouse? Well this 
minister being from the south doesn't realize 
that it's not a county town, Dryden is miss- 
ing that. The new courthouse is Ottawa, 
Jim; that's where we need it. 

So could the minister tell us if there are 
any plans to cushion the blow should that 
happen? What steps have been taken so that 
the people of Dr>'den — and I have to say, 



2352 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Mr. Chairman, that they're fine people, 
they're industrious. 

Hon. Mr. Snow: How would you know? 

Mr. Roy: How would I know? I lived 
there for two summers, that's how I know. 
I got to meet people there. 

Hon. Mr. Snow: Did you speak frankly? 

Mr. Roy: I wasn't afraid of going up there, 
Jim. 

_ Hon. Mr. Snow: The>' don't call me 
Jacques Xeige. 

Mr. Roy: They don't call you Jacques 
Neige? No, they wouldn't recognize you up 
there. They wouldn't recognize you. They 
wouldn't know that you were a big-shot in 
Toronto. In Dryden they're all the same, 
everybody is treated the same way. 

I want to ask the minister what he can 
tell us? Certainly that's part of this vote. 
What can you tell us about the situation in 
a town like Dryden? What steps did you 
take, first of all to assure that the implied 
threat by Reed paper does not unduly 
jeopardize the existence of that town? 
Second, what steps have been taken so that 
diversification can take place? 

I understand that they're far from the 
markets. I imderstand the problem is that 
you just can't be moving a General Motors 
plant up there. It's not that easy. But never- 
theless Dryden is a thriving community. It's 
a good area to be living in. WTiat steps are 
being taken to encourage industry to locate 
in that area? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I am particularlv pleased 
the member for Ottawa East has taken such 
an interest in northern Ontario and in Dry- 
den. I welcome his input and his concern. 
It is a real concern to me both as the Minister 
of Northern Affairs and the local member 
responsible for that area, one who has been 
aroimd for many years, long enough to see 
the great pipe to which you refer. 

I can recall when Dryden had about 2.000 
people. We used to play hockev against the 
town of Dryden; I came from the little town 
of Hudson. In fac^, right after the Second 
World War the hockey team from Hudson on 
occasion used to beat the hockey team from 
Dryden, Drvden was that small. 

Mr. Roy: They used to call them the 
Flying Frenchmen in those days. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: When you think of it, 
that mill has existed since 1913; it has been 
in existence some 60-odd years, and I don't 
think there is another pulp mill in Ontario 
that has had its ups and downs and financial 
problems. Every type of problem that can 



beset an industry has certainly come to that 
mill at Dryden. 

You mentioned the Employment Develop- 
ment Fund being denied the Reed paper com- 
pany. As the Minister of Industry and Tour- 
ism pointed out, the application they sub- 
mitted did not meet the criteria and the 
criteria were clearly spelled out in his answer 
to the Legislature. 

Your leader just returned from a visit to 
the great town of Dryden. 

Mr. Foulds: Did he really? 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes. 

Mr. Foulds: Did he get lost? 

Interjections. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I don't think the hon- 
ourable member has to worry about his poli- 
tical future if Stuart Smith goes to his riding, 
I can assure him of that. 

Mr. Foulds: No, I didn't even hear of the 
visit. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I don't think he made 
any political impact in my riding. It was a 
learning exercise. 

Mr. Roy: Don't be too sure. I can remem- 
ber when we had a Liberal member in your 
riding. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: You can? Can you 
remember that far back? 

Mr. Roy: That's right. When I was in 
Dryden we had a Liberal member. 

Mr. Foulds: They almost lost the federal 
member up there. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: There have been some 
good Liberal members, personal friends of 
mine, both of them. 

I don't think he made a great impact. In 
fact his suggestion was that the government 
should put in the pollution control equipment 
at the Reed paper company. 

Can you imagine what that would do? 
Every pulp mill in the country would be 
lined up at Frank Miller's door and at Harry 
Parrott's door, instead of going the route 
the government is going, saving. "Look, 
meet the criteria we have laid out to you. 
We will give you incentives. Use Aour dol- 
lars for modernization; use your dollars up 
to a one-to-three basis for the development 
of pollution control measures which are 
required." 

Nobody has yet to my knowledge realh- 
recognized what that company has put into 
pollution control programs. I think it is close 
to $20 million in the last few years. You don't 
get the fallout in Dryden that you used to get 
on your car. I don't know if you remember 
that. You would park your car and it was all 
covered with snowflakes. Well, that has gone. 



MAY 29, 1979 



2353 



The smell to which you refer has been cut 
in half. They have worked on it. The pipe 
has gone from the Wabigoon River; you don't 
see that any more. There is no foam on the 
river as there used to be. They are working 
on the primary settlement basin behind the 
plant. There is work going on but you 
don't hear anything about that; that doesn't 
make news; that doesn't make a headline. 

If there is one town that is down and which 
everyone wants to shove down further it is 
the town of Dryden. I think the time has 
come to put a stop to it. I say that in all 
sincerity. I don't think the people in the 
town of Dryden want to hear any more about 
their mill. They are the most loyal employees 
you will find anywhere in the province. 

As you correctly pointed out, they are in- 
dustrious and friendly. They will always be 
that way. One community in my riding I love 
going to is the town of Dryden. They are a 
young group, they are vibrant. They love 
their community and they love their mill. 
Don't ever forget that. The resources commit- 
tee is going out next week and they will get 
that loud and clear— that the feeling the em- 
ployees have for their mill is something 
outstanding. 

They want to do everything they can. They 
are aware of the pollution problems. Like 
everyone else they are aware there is a prob- 
lem there. Like anybody else, they would 
like to get it cleaned up. They also realize 
there are certain financial problems, there are 
certiin economic limits that must be main- 
tained and lived up to which that company 
is tr>-ing to do. I am not here defending the 
Reed paper company, I want to make that 
\ery clear, but I will stand and defend the 
town of Dr>'den until the end. 

[9:45] 

You ask what we are doing to look to the 
future. We don't think there is a crisis at 
stake \\'ith regard to the town of Dr>'den, 
because that mill will always operate. I am 
firmly convinced of that. 

Mr. Roy: That's not what Reed says. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: It's going to operate, 
because if the Reed pai)er company doesn't 
operate it somebody else will. The re^ources 
are there; all the ingredients are there to 
maintain that plant. They are located right 
in the middle of the resources— timber limits 
are on the north, south, east and west. It's 
ideally situated. The transportation routes are 
ideal. They have energy; the gas line goes 
right through the town of Dryden. They have 
electrical power from their own dam and 
from Ontario Hydro. Most important of all, 
they have a solid, sound labour force; a loyal 



labour force. They've got all the ingredients 
and the markets are there. You don't have to 
be a mathematician or a genius to figure out 
that mill will operate. 

I would hope the resources committee 
would come back and be realistic when they 
look at the problems facing that particular 
plant, given it is two or three years in a 66- 
year period. Is that going to stop the world? 
Is that going to stop the world if we allow 
them a little more time? 

Mr. Foulds: Have you talked to your col- 
league, the Minister of the Environment, 
about that? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Yes, I have. He knows 
my feelings— and we may diflFer. I say that 
right here, we may differ. He has a job to do 
and I respect his responsibilities. I always will 
and I would not want to interfere or force 
him to change. But I do think in this instance 
we have to be very realistic and positive 
about it and take what you refer to as the 
cloud away from the town of Dryden. Let's 
get on with the job. 

The town of Dryden has a great future. If 
you know the geography of northwestern On- 
tario, you know Dryden is situated geograph- 
ically in the heart of northwestern Ontario. 
It is fast becoming the hub of northwestern 
Ontario in the field of transportation. 

The jet port is being developed. Nordair 
goes in there, as the Minister of Transporta- 
tion and Communications points out, on a 
regular basis. In fact, you can leave Toronto 
tomorrow morning, be in Dryden all day, 
take a Nordair plane tomorrow evening and 
be back the same day. That's excellent serv- 
ice and it's because of that excellent jet port. 

That airport has been developed through 
the initiative of the local people. They saw 
the opportunity, they seized the opportunity 
and they ran with it. They've done one tre- 
mendous job in developing that jet port. 
Thousands of people go through the Dryden 
airport on an annual basis. It was stunning to 
the Air Canada officials when they looked at 
the number of passengers coming to and 
going out of Dryden. They couldn't believe 
the numbers. 

Mr. Roy: What's the flight, Toronto- 
Dryden-Winnipeg? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: There is one flight 
which is routed Toronto-Dryden-Thunder 
Bay-Sault Ste. Marie-Toronto. It goes right 
through, I think there's another one that goes 
Toronto-Thunder Bay-Dryden- Winnipeg. 

Mr. Roy: That's Nordair. 



2354 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Hon. Mr. Bemier: Yes, it*s Nordair. It's 
excellent service and they are using 737s on 
a daily basis. 

There are things we've done in the area 
other than the development of the jet port. 
Natural Resources "has spent a considerable 
amount of money in developing a land base 
for their Tracker aircraft to fight forest fires 
in the area. 

We built a new provincial building in Dry- 
den. Those members who will go up next 
week will see that magnificent new provincial 
government edifice that houses a number of 
ministries and services the entire area. 

We're also going to complete and open up 
this year the new road that will link Fort 
Frances with Dryden. That again, will put 
another spoke into the wheel of transporta- 
tion into the town of Dr>'den. 

Dryden, of all communities in northwest- 
em Ontario, has an extremely bright future. 
In fact, last year alone their building permits 
topped $9 million which was the highest for 
any community in northwestern Ontario, It's 
been like that for the last two or three years. 
The faith of the entire area is in the town of 
Dryden. I think it's up to us in the Legisla- 
ture to go along with that faith and support 
the local x)eople as much as we can. 

So I have no qualms or fears about the 
future of Dryden. The plant will operate and 
the resources are there. Let's get on vinth the 
job of devebping and keeping tihose jobs in 
place. 

Mr. Roy: I am pleased to hear of the bright 
prospects for the town of Dryden. Having 
listened to the minister, however, if what he 
says is a fact about the mill in Dryden, that 
it will continue to operate, the resources are 
there, the markets are there and the work 
force is there, then in such circumstances 
how is it thalt this comptany can sort of 
threaten the government and say, "If you 
try to force us too quickly with your pollu- 
tion controls, we will shut down?*' How can 
tiiat have any impact? Doesn't the approach 
taken by my leader who says, **Either we lend 
you the money or we put in those things and 
you pay for it on the long term" make sense? 

If the economic future is there and if the 
mill is going to continue to operate viably 
and economically, why can't the pollution 
be stopped? I appreciate that progress has 
been made, but you know as well as I do 
they have a long way to go. The disaster that 
has been caused in that area is probably 
the worst in the whole of Canada, unfortun- 
ately. I don't say that about it gloatingly, 
or take any si)eciai satisfaction in saying it, 
but it is a fact. 



Considering ithe pollution still going on 
there, how can Reed be threatening the 
communitv' by saying, "If the government is 
too tough with us we will close down"? 
According to what you are saying that is 
a bluff. Why doesn't the government— and I 
understand the position of the Minister of 
the Environment — come down a bit harder 
and have them meet pollution controls? 

As you say, everything is there for them 
to continue. In the long term, the markets 
are there and they are going to be able to 
pay for it. What they are doing is trying 
to bluff their way out of something. I find 
that sad considering as you say, the future 
prospects of a town like Dryden. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I want to make it very 
clear the present company that operates the 
Dryden mill has never, to my knowledge, 
threatened the government or the town of 
Dryden with closure. 

Mr. Roy: What the hell did they do in 
committee one year ago? 

Mr. Hennessy: Watch your language. 
That's bad language. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: No, they did not say 
that. 

Mr. Wildman: They said that they wanted 
to sell it. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: They never said they 
would close. They have made that statement 
a dozen times. 

Mr. Roy: It was a very subtle threat. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: They have clearly stated 
they have no intention of doing that. They 
have never threatened the government or 
the town with closure. What they want is a 
reasonable length of time to put the pollution 
control equipment in place. The Minister of 
the Environment has said 1982. Well, 1979 
has gone now, so 1982 has gone by the board. 

They are saying, "Give us until 1985. We 
think that is a more reahstic time by which 
we can do it and we may be able to do it 
with our own resources. We don't need 
government resources." 

To me, it is so simple. I dbn t know what 
the argument is about, except— 

Mr. Roy: I do know. The longer they 
pollute, the worse it is. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I know, but they have 
been there 66 years. The trouble is that 
it has now goit into a political battle. With 
all due respect, I think we have to accept 
that once it gets into the hands of the 
politicians. Sometimes we all play politics, 
and pollution is a good issue. Inco is a good 
issue as it relates to pollution; Reed is a good 



MAY 29, 1979 



2355 



issue as it relates to pollution. You may make 
some marks. 

\ Mr. Bolan: It was the politicians who 
created the problem in the first place by not 
doing anything about it when they could 
have. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: It is easy to say that. 
With hindsight it is easy to point. 

Mr. Bolan: The facts speak for themselves 
on that. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I remember when I first 
got into i>olitics, we had a town debate in 
the town of Dryden. I will tell you if you 
spoke against that mill you were in trouble 
in that community. 

It has to be eased in and it has been eased 
in. That is the point I was trying to make. 
A lot of progress has been made. Even in 
the town of Dryden, with the new sewage 
treatment plant and the water treatment 
plant, they have been working on it. I think 
it is time to get oflF their backs. It is time 
to get off that community's back- 
Mr. Roy: We are not on the town's back; 
we are on the mill's back. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier —and gi\'e them a fair 
length of time to do the iob. That m'll has 
been unique in Ontario in its ups and downs, 
to which I referred, in a number of different 
areas. It is so far from the markets and there 
are a number of problems related to it. Given 
a reasonable length of time, without govern- 
ment or taxpayers' resources, I think they can 
do it themselves. 

Mr. Deputy Chairman: This is item 2, vote 
702. It seems to me we can probably discuss 
the same thing on vote 703, item 1, regard- 
less of what it is. 

Mr. Wildman: It seems to me that the 
minister made a numljer of comments j'lst 
now more in his capacit>' as the member for 
the area than as a minister of the crown 
and Minister of Northern Affairs. What we 
have seen in this whole debate on Dryden, 
when the Minister of the Environment re- 
ferred the question to the resources devel- 
opment committee and then appeared before 
the committee, as did Reed, is that the 
Minister of the Environment made clear that 
his 1982 date was predicated upon the fact 
that the Treasurer was making funds avail- 
able. Since there were funds available, in 
terms of what resources the company had 
itself and the length of time the government 
was giving them, he felt he didn't have to 
consider what Reed had to say. Reed was 
saying it could do it itself by 1985 perhaps. 
But the Minister of the Environment said, 
"That doesn't matter. We want it done by 



1982 and we don't have to take into account 
your arguments because there is money 
available from the Treasurer's program." 

Then Reed goes back and says, "All right, 
it that is the position of the government, we 
will make a proposal." They make a pro- 
posal and the Minister of Industry and 
Tourism denies it. 

What we have is two positions from the 
cabinet on that. We have the Minister of the 
Environment saying he doesn't have to worry 
about the financial problems because there 
is money available and that he himself isn't 
concerned with the criteria. Then we have 
the Minister of Industry and Tourism coming 
along and saying, "No, you can't have the 
money because what you are proi>osing 
doesn't fit into the criteria." Now we have 
a third position from the member for ^he 
area, who gets up and says, "We should 
look at 1985 because the company sa>'s it 
can do it, perhaps with its own resources, 
by 1985. What are a few more years?" 

It seems to me we have three positions 
from the cabinet, much less three positions 
in the committee, to deal with. When we 
get that straightened out maybe, we wall get 
the whole matter straightened out for 
Dryden. Frankly, I am not sure this has 
anything to do with the estimates. I would 
like to see this vote pass. 

Mr. Deputy Chainnan: Let the minister 
reply and do his best to keep it to the 
point. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: In defence of the Min- 
ister of the Environment, who I am sure 
can defend himself ver>' ably, the company 
just didn't qualify. That is important because 
the Minister of Industr\' and Tourism is 
handling taxpayers' dollars. If the ministry 
has established certain criteria to which 
companies must conform to qualify and if 
this compan>- hasn't qualified, then it is 
obvious there is nothing he can do but to 
deny that request. There is nothing that 
says the company can't come back with 
another proposal. The Minister of the En- 
vironment is correct in saying, "There is a 
program in place. Qualify for it." The Min- 
ister of Industry and Tourism says, "Look 
at your original application. This application, 
as presented to us, does not qualify. If voii 
want to re-apply, that's fine." 

There is no split in the thrust. Therr> is 
no difference. I think we are all heade.l iu 
the same direction. 

Item 2 agreed to. 

Vote 702 agreed to. 



2356 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



On vote 703, northern communities as- 
sistance program; item I, community prior- 
ities: 

Mr. Bolan: Speeding along, Mr. Chairman, 
as we have been for the past few days de- 
bating these estimates, I want to mention 
two areas. One of them is municipal infra- 
structure, the Sturgeon Falls water supply. 
Could the minister bring us up to date on 
that please? 

He may recall that a water study was 
done of that area. He may also recall that 
we had some correspondence with him over 
the fact that they ran out of water this 
winter. He may recall when the pipes froze 
underneath the bridge they were out of 
water for some time. I must say the ministry 
oflBce in North Bay was instrumental in pro- 
viding immediate assistance from the armed 
forces, who were able to bring in the neces- 
sary pumps and what have you to try to 
remedy the situation. I would hke to know 
what the minister proposes to do as far as 
assisting the conrndunity in these repairs. 
[10:00] 

While we are dealing with this vote, I 
notice "resource development," "conservation 
authority," under the heading of 'list of 
major projects." The minister might want to 
look into or consult with the Ministry of 
Natural Resources about setting up a con- 
servation authority for the Sturgeon River. 
Did the minister know there is none? If 
there had been monitoring of the entire 
system, including the three dams that are 
operated by Ontario Hydro along that sys- 
tem, some of the damage might have been 
alleviated— I am not saying it would have- 
but it is definitely an area that should have 
that kind of authority. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Mr. Chairman, the 
question of the improvement of the Sturgeon 
Falls water distribution system is something 
that is on our table at the present time. I 
have to say to the honourable member that 
the former Solicitor General of Canada's 
mother, Mrs. Blais, who is an excellent 
councillor in Sturgeon Falls, was most adam- 
ant on the basis of information from her son 
that the Department of Regional Economic 
Expansion was going to come in and help 
Sturgeon Falls. She had it right from Ottawa, 
right from the chief himself. 

We did some investigating and kept hear- 
ing that DREE was not interested in Stur- 
geon Falls. But Mrs. Blais kept coming 
around, saying, "My son said DREE was in- 
terested and would help. Jean-Jacques Blais 
said so." We kept going around in circles 
for about six months to a year; then, finally, 



the information from our staflF was proved 
to be correct in that DREE was not inter- 
ested in doing anything for Sturgeon Falls. 

Mr. Bolan: But you spent some money to 
make a study of the requirements. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Yes, we spent some 
money; we have $150,000 in this year's bud- 
get for Sturgeon Falls which I think will 
complete the engineering study. We are also 
working very closely with the Ministry of 
the Environment with regard to the manage- 
ment by results rating. Apparently their MBR 
rating is exceptionally low, and the Ministry 
of the Environment has gone back to look 
at their needs. 

Quite frankly, in discussions with the 
mayor there, who is a very able fellow, he 
has pointed out to me his problems on 
a number of occasions. I am very sympa- 
thetic; he has a serious problem. If I had 
my druthers, of course, we would get on 
with it very quickly. I have indicated to him 
that I will be back to him within the near 
future as to an answer to his request in the 
hope that we can get something started this 
year. 

Mr. Bolan: What about the conservation 
authority? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I am glad the member 
mentioned that. As recently as this morning 
we had a meeting with the Field forest in- 
dustries to discuss their future in the com- 
munity of Field. The proposal that Mr. Jack 
Hope presented to the cabinet committee was 
very positive, very fair and realistic, and it 
will be dealt with at cabinet tomorrow. 

I can give the member some assurance, 
from my own point of view, that that indus- 
try will remain. There will be some assistance 
for them. To what extent, I cannot say at 
this time. But the Ministry of Natural Re- 
sources has reassured them as to their tim- 
ber supplv. They are not interested in re- 
locating the plant, because they think they 
can sustain flooding up to a certain height — 
it will not interfere with their operations — 
on a periodic basis. To suflFer through that 
would be cheaper in the long run than re- 
locating the mill entirely. 

We stronsly feel as a committee — and 
there were four or five ministers there — that 
if we are going to spend public funds in re- 
locating the community, we have to have 
jobs for those people. Just like nicrht follows 
day, they are needed; so there will be some 
positive results come out of that meeting. 

One discussion that took place was about 
the idea of more co-ordination with regard 
to the watershed area. They pointed out to 
us that Ontario Hydro was involved, the 
Ministry of Natural Resources was involved, 



MAY 29, 1979 



2357 



the federal government was involved in Lake 
Nipissing, and there was no real co-ordinat- 
ing authority, and that a conservation 
authority might well be the vehicle for all 
those things. The Minister of Natural Re- 
sources has clearly indicated to them that 
was one area he was going to look into, be- 
cause apparently a number of dams had been 
let deteriorate over the years and the prob- 
lem may be attributed to that. That issue is 
right at hand. 

Mr. Wildman: In relation to that, I would 
point out as well that the same situation 
exists in the Mississagi watershed and in the 
Goulais River as well, where there was flood- 
ing. There have been proposals made for 
flood control on the Goulais and co-ordina- 
tion between Hydro and the Ministry of 
Natural Resources in the Mississagi water- 
shed. Perhaps that's something the minister 
should be looking at as well. 

I would like to ask a question in relation 
to the list of major projects you have here 
in the briefing book, where it gives us 
specifics on most of them and with Temagami 
it just says "infrastructure." Could you ex- 
plain what that means? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: In these estimates there's 
a figure of $280,000 to build up the water 
supplv system. This is in co-operation with 
the Ministry of the Environment and it 
follows a report given to us by James F. 
MacLaren. The spring of 1979 is the period 
in which the plans will be finalized. The 
monev will be used to improve the water 
supply problem in Temagami. 

If you'll recall that system was operated 
by the ONR for a number of years. We've 
long felt that was something that really 
was out of the realm of responsibility of the 
ONR, so we've encouraged the municipality 
to take over the water supply system on the 
condition that we would upgrade it con- 
siderably. This is what it's for. 

Mr. Wildman: Also, I would like to know, 
in the list of major socio-medical projects, 
how much you're spending on each of those 
'n Dryden, Red Lake and the North Shore. 
What does it mean in terms of "various 
locations"? I know what that means, but 
"manpower needs reviews." What are those 
manpower needs reviews and how much is 
being spent on those three other areas— Dry- 
den, Red Lake and North Shore, the projects 
that are listetl there? 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: For the development of 
a home for the aged for the tovm of Dryden, 
in co-operation with the Ministr>- of Com- 
munity and Social Services, there is $120,000 
in these estimates. 



We have a proposal from the town of Red 
Lake for the development of a medical centre 
that will house the doctors in that area. We're 
working on a two thirds, one third grant. We 
haven't got the exact figures but they're look- 
ing at something around $200,000 in total. 
They will raise their third locally and we 
will assist them for the development of this 
medical centre to which they could attract 
doctors. Many of these areas have extreme 
difiiculty in attracting doctors. 

It is similar to what we were doing in 
Ignace. We did it in the riding of Rainy 
River; we assisted in the development of a 
medical centre there. Rainy River has come 
forward with a similar request. 

We've assisted in the development of simi- 
lar facilities in Nakina and in Geraldton to 
attract and to encourage dentists and' doctors 
to stay in those areas. 

Manpower reviews: Yes, we have a figure 
of $30,000 in this year's estimates to deter- 
mine the manpower needs and new programs 
being implemented in northern Ontario by 
the children's services division. I think that 
announcement went out today in co-operation 
with the Ministry of Community and Social 
Ser\ices. That's an indication of how we work 
with the other ministries providing the funds 
and doing the necessary things that should be 
done. 

Item 1 agreed to. 

On item 2, isolated communities: 

Mr. Wildman: Could the minister explain 
the lower estimate in the 1979-80 estimates? 
It's now down to $500,000 from the $630,000 
in 1978-79. Can he explain the reason for 
that? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: We had $630,000 there 
last \ear. Quite frankly, there was a lack of 
applications. In fact, much of the funds were 
used for the purchase of fire trucks so we 
didn't receive as many applications as we 
anticipated. We think the $500,000 figure is 
sufficient for this year. Many of the require- 
ments and requests have been responded to. 
Something like 42 municipalities now have 
received some form of fire protection and 
assistance so the bigger ones are being looked 
after— at least until we get to the sewer and 
water requirements. But the number of appli- 
cations received was going down and we 
strongh- felt that $500,000 would do us for 
this year. If we're short, we can move to the 
regional priority budget and supplement the 
Isolated Communities Assistance Fund, if it's 
necessary, 

Mr. Wildman: If the minister is looking for 
applications, the community of Searchmont 
would like to get some further assistance. I 



2358 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



mentioned that before. They need a bigger 
truck. The one they have now can't make the 
hills in the winter time if they carry a full 
load of water. 

Mr. Roy: That could be a problem if the 
truck can't go up hills. 

Mr. Wildman: If they don't carry a full 
load they don't have a large enough capacity 
when they go to a fire. They just get it under 
control when they run out of water and they 
have to go back and get more water. When 
they come back, of course, the building is 
burned to the ground. It is a bit of a problem. 

Mr. Roy: Did you promise to give them a 
bigger truck, Leo? 

Mr. Wildman: Good. 

I'd like to know about two matters in rela- 
tion to inspections. One, who is responsible 
for fire inspections in the unorganized com- 
munities? Two, who is responsible for en- 
forcing the building code? 

As we all know, the government came out 
with a revised building code a couple of 
years ago. They had seminars for municipal 
building inspectors— they had a big fanfare 
with a lot of changes and ver\' complex things. 
Yet, I don't know who, if anyone, enforces 
this or gives advice to people with regard to 
the building code when they're building their 
houses in unorganized areas. 

As a matter of fact, we're carr>ang out 
extensive programs, as the minister has allud- 
ed to and other members have alluded to 
earlier, under the OHRP program in unorgan- 
ized communities. The ministry is carr>dng 
out the administrative functions of that 
through the ministry's Northern Affairs offi- 
cers, but I don't think anyone is enforcing 
the building code. 

On fire inspections, recently I had a com- 
plaint in my area from the Goulais River 
area about Mountainview School. A number 
of the parents were very concerned about 
the fact th^t an old annex— the old one- 
room school— was being used as a sort of 
extra classroom, rather than a portable. They 
were very concerned that it perhat)s didn't 
come up to the fire marshal's standards. As 
a result they asked me if I could get an 
inspection done. 

[J 0:15] 

They had approached the nearest muni- 
cipality, Sault Ste. Marie, and asked the 
fire chief for an inspection and he said they 
could do it, he supposed, but it really wasn't 
under their jurisdiction. I contacted the fire 
marshal and they did finally make arrange- 
ments to have the Sault Ste. Marie fire de- 
partment go out and inspect them. 



Is that a normal situation? Is it realh on 
an ad hoc basis? Or, if there isn't any in- 
spection now, is the ministry ready to make 
any kind of recommendation to the fire 
marshal's office and to the Ministry of 
Housing in terms of these two codes and 
for the enforcement in unorganized areas? 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Chairman, the co- 
operation we have from the fire marshal's 
office and the Solicitor General is second to 
none as it relates to the fire protection pro- 
gram in unorganized communities. In fact, 
we do have the resources to provide the 
necessary equipment, but we don't move in 
until the fire marshal's office has gone into 
that community, looked at it and made cer- 
tain recommendations following its personal 
and direct review. 

Even after that review is completed and 
the equipment is delivered, there are ex- 
tensive training programs to train the people 
who will be using that equipment to the 
best of their ability. So, they not only 
monitor the community before to give it 
advice as to what equipment should go in 
there, but they come in after and train the 
individuals who will be protecting their 
community with the equipment we have 
placed there. We just couldn't do without 
their co-operation, no question about it. We 
couldn't put equipment in those communi- 
ties without that type of training. 

We would express our appreciation to the 
fire marshal's office for its continued co- 
operation and I would like to ooint out. while 
the fire marshal does train those firemen to 
operate the equipment, we have not moved 
into the home inspection program as yet. In 
unorganized areas there is no authority, ex- 
cept on a voluntary basis, of course, for 
people to have their homes inspected. In 
that case, the volunteer fire brigade— they 
are all on a volunteer basis— would go. 

With regard to public buildings, the fire 
marshal's office can be requested to come in; 
schools, libraries, arenas, this type of thing, 
they will do that on request. But we have 
not gone into that home inspection program 
as yet. 

The building code is another matter. The 
Ministry of Housing is grappling with this 
issue. It is a difficult one because of the 
vastness of northern Ontario. They have 
been in touch with us to get some idea of 
how they would administer. I think Natural 
Resources has been helping them also to 
find a solution without bringing in a large 
number of civil servants to walk around as 
policemen. It is yet to be resolved as to 
how that will be applied. 



MAY 29, 1979 



2359 



Because of the feelings of UCANO West 
and UCANO East, the local services board 
is getting into this type of regulatory con- 
trol, planning and so on. I don't think we 
have the expertise to do it, so we have 
shied away from that. That is why we have 
gone strictly to the providing of services 
on the local services board. We are not 
going to see them administer the building 
code in those areas. That is something the 
Ministry of Housing has to come to grips 
with and there is no question in my mind 
that if there were proper building codes ap- 
phed many of our problems related to fire 
and development would not exist; in other 
words, there would be the prevention mea- 
sures that we all want to see. I am sure, as 
we go down the road, the Ministry of Hous- 
ing will have answers. 

Item 2 agreed to. 

On item 3, telecommunications facilities: 

Mr. Wildman: I have the same question 
in relation to item 3. Could the minister 
explain the reason for what appears to be a 
steady drop in the funding under this pro- 
gram where we have a substantial drop from 
1978-79 estimates to those of 1979-80? 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The northern com- 
munities assistance program; this relates di- 
rectly to the telecommunications facilities in 
the far north. Those facilities are now in 
place. They are completed. The $345,000 is 
the cost which I believe >'0U will now see 
on an ongoing basis for the maintenance and 
the operation of those services in the re- 
mote areas of northern Ontario. 

Item 3 agreed to. 

Vote 703 agreed to. 

On \ote 704, regional priorities and devel- 
opment program; item 1, regional priorities: 

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Minister, with respect to 
road construction, there is one road in the 
northwest part of my riding about which you 
and I have been corresponding. It's the road 
whicli runs from Field to River Valley. I 
seeithe minister has a map there. It would be 
identified on the map as highway 539. This 
is a road which is in very poor condition. I 
realize you can only do so much with the 
budget which you have, however, since it is 
your function to co-ordinate the priorities of 
road constniction, I really would urge you to 
consider this in your priorities for the follow- 
ing year. 

My reason for concern is the road is heavi- 
ly used by truck operators who are in the 
logging business. Of course, at the worst time 
of year, which is the spring, the loads are cut 
down to sometimes one quarter. They run 



into some great difficulties as far as making 
a profitable haul when one is dealing with a 
quarter or half load. I am sure it's a problem 
you have heard of in many communities in 
nortJiem Ontario, but it is a very significant 
and very real problem to these people, pri- 
marily because of the big cutbacks which 
they have to make on the loads. 

It's not a very long road; maybe it's 10 
miles long. Basically it's a question of round- 
ing out some curves, shaving down some 
crests, and, of course, general widening and 
ditching. 

The other road is one wliich goes nortli of 
there. It's identified as highway 805. It goes 
from River Valley in a northerly direction to- 
wards Grassy Lake and other points up that 
way. 

I have had several contacts with loggers 
who are very mudh concerned about the con- 
dition of this road, particularly in the winter 
time when they are approaching crossings. 
They have to cross four level crossings where 
they encounter considerable diflSculties. In 
fact, there have been a couple of incidents 
where they nearly ran into a train on coming 
down hill; the crossing is there. 

I've had some co-operation with the Min- 
istry of Transportation and Communications 
in mv region, however, I think it's something 
which should be brought to your attention 
since it is your function to co-ordinate the 
priorities of road construction in the area. I 
have to say I realize there is only so much 
monev to go around, but nevertheless, when 
you do consider your priorities again, I am 
drawing these two specific pieces of road in 
my riding to your attention. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I think it's very appro- 
priate the honourable member should bring 
it up at this time because there will be great 
joy. I am sure, in River Valley this Saturdav 
as the honourable member will be there with 
my parliamentary assistant to deliver a fire 
truck. 

Mr. Bolan: At four o'clock in the after- 
noon. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: At four o'clock in the 
afternoon, instead of one. I'm sorr>'. 

Mr. Roy: Have you got a parliamentary 
secretary? 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: He is a parliamentary 
assistant. 

Mr. Roy: Are you kidding? 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The north is so big, I 
tell you, I spend 50 per cent of my time 
there, as he does. 

Mr. Chairman: I think that comes under 
the first vote. 



2360 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Mr. Roy: Is that John Lane? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: Yes, He works up and 
clown, bringing the good things to northern 
Ontario, because I'm so busy I can't do it all 
myself, quite frankly. There's so much hap- 
ix-n'ng up there. 

River Valley will be the recipient of a fire 
truck on Saturday and I'm going to ask my 
parhamentary assistant to give me a report 
on road 539; we will certainly have a look at 
your suggestions when we move into setting 
our priorities for next year. 

Mr. Wildman: I wonder if the minister 
could give us some kind of update as to what 
is happening with the study on the Killarney 
road and when he expects that might be 
completed, so that people who live in Kil- 
larney, the young people, won't have to travel 
all the way to Sudbury to go to school so 
that they would have a much shorter route, 
so that they could attend schorl in Espanola, 
Could the minister give some indication when 
that study is going to be completed and when 
v,'e might ha\e some kind of go%'ernment deci- 
sion on that? 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I don't have that in- 
formation at my fingertips, but I will get it 
for the honourable member as soon as I can 
and forward it to you. It is one that we are 
pnxiously awaiting, because the local member, 
tlie member for Algoma, has as you know- 
Mr. Wildman: Algoma-Manitoulin. 
Hon. Mr. Bernien — Alcroma-Manitoulin— 
has been most instrumental in pressing for 
such a development. In fact we have looked 
at the possibility of airstrip development at 
Killarney. All tnis hinges on that particular 
report that the consultants, with the co-opera- 
tion of MNR, are doing. I will try to get the 
information for you as quickly as I can and 
get back to you. 

Mr. Wildman: I will forgo raising the mat- 
ter of the Granary Lake road once more. 
However, I would like the minister to con- 
sider the question of tertiary roads as well as 
main highways in the north, the need for up- 
grading of secondary and tertiary highways, 
which to an extent may have been put in the 
back seat recently because of the need, and 
the very serious need, for the upgrading of 
main highways like highway 17 and so on. 
If he is thinking of that pernaps the minister 
might look at 638 and 552 west in Algoma. 

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I 
will certainly take that into consideration. 

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 704 carry; or 
just the items? The members have sort of 
strayed around a little. 

Items 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to. 



On item 4, rail and ferry services: 
Mr. Bolan: I see the ONR boys over there; 
they thought they were going to get away. 

I want your undertaking that you are not 
going to carry out the threats which are being 
made by the chairman of the Ontario North- 
land Transportation Commission and by his 
hatchet man up in Kapuskasing, Piche, that 
you are not planning the decentralization of 
the Ontario Northland Railway, specifically 
the bus passenger service, the telecommunica- 
tions service, as well as the rail repair service. 
You know, Mr. Minister, and we have dis- 
cussed this se\'eral times before, and I have 
raised it in the House, that these are the 
verbal threats, the verbal harassment, which 
these tvvo members of the Ontario Northland 
Transportation Commission are spewing in 
northeastern Ontario. 

Hon. Mr. Walker: I thought your party 
favoured decentralization. 

Mr. Bolan: Keep quiet, Gordon we will get 
to you later. We might find a work camp for 
you up in northern Ontario; in fact we will 
build one for you. 

Hon. Mr. Walker: Don't you have nasty 
things to say about northern Ontario; it is a 
great spot. 

Mr. B(Aan: In any event, Mr. Minister, I 
want your undertaking there is nothing like 
that going on, because I want to be able to 
say to the people of northeastern Ontario to- 
morrow, that the ONR is owned by the peo- 
ple of Ontario and that it is not the private 
railway line of the Ontario Northland Trans- 
portation Commission. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: As the honourable mem- 
ber is very much aware, the commission is 
given the responsibility to administer the 
aflFairs of the ONR in the best interests pos- 
sible of all the people. I have not heard them 
talking of any move related to the matters 
to which the honourable member refers. I see 
it in the newspapers. 

Mr. B<^an: Oh come on now. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I said the commission as 
a whole. The odd individual commissioner 
may be making noises or— 

Mr. Bolan: Yes, but he is the chairman. 
Didn't you know that? 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: No, he is not. 

Mr. Mathews is the chairman. I think he 
laid it out clearly to the chamber of com- 
merce that there was no big move to move 
out of North Bay. I think that is very clear. 

Mr. Bolan: That was after the minister 
put the whip to him. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: They have a responsi- 
bility to run an operation as efficiently and 



MAY 29, 1979 



2361 



economically as possible and in the best in- 
terests of the people of northern Ontario. 
I am pleased to say I think they are doing 
that, and I am sure they will continue to do 
it. 

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Chairman, I would like 
the minister to explain what he meant in his 
answer in the question period that the minis- 
try and the commission have not had serious 
discussions with VIA Rail. What did he mean 
by saying that he had not had serious dis- 
cussions with them? 

Mr. Bolan: That is what the deputy minis- 
ter said up in North Bay. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: I would be glad to ans- 
wer that. We all know the federal govern- 
ment has passed a certain piece of legisla- 
tion giving VIA the authority to control and 
to cet into passenger railway service. We met 
with them in a very informal way, saying, 
"Look, where are we going with the VIA 
takeover?" if you want to call it that. They 
made it very clear to us: "We are not pre- 
pared even to talk to you at this point in 
time. We are interested in getting the trans- 
continental service into place. We are work- 
ing with the CNR and the CPR on getting 
those main lines operational under the VIA 
umbrella. We will get back to you." That is 



what I meant when I said we had not en- 
gaged in any serious discussions with VIA. 

Mr. Wildman: But the minister was inter- 
ested. 

Hon. Mr. Bemier: We do not have any 
choice, quite frankly; that will be their 
decision. They will be looking to other 
provinces that have provincial railways too, 
I suspect, but we have had no serious dis- 
cussions with them to this point in time. 

Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, I want 
to comment that there may be commitments 
I have made to the members during the 
course of the examination of my estimates. I 
am going to ask my staflF, as I did last year, 
to review all the things we have said and 
the ideas we have exchanged. If I have made 
commitments to provide information and not 
fulfilled those commitments, then I will do 
so in writing to the individual members. I 
hope that will be satisfactory. 

Items 4 and 5 agreed to. 

Vote 704 agreed to. 

Mr. Chairman: That completes the esti- 
mates of the Ministry of Northern AfFairs. 

On motion by hon. Mr. Grossman, the 
committee of supply reported certain reso- 
lutions. 

The House adjourned at 10:34 p.m. 



2362 LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



CONTENTS 

Tuesday, May 29, 1979 

Estimates, Ministry of Northern Affairs, concluded, Mr. Bemier 2333 

Adjournment 2361 



SPEAKERS IN TfflS ISSUE 



Ashe, G. ( Durham West PC ) 

Bemier, Hon. L.; Minister of Northern Affairs (Kenora PC) 

Bolan, M. (Nipissing L) 

Bradley, J. (St. Catharines L) 

Edighoffer, H.; Chairman (Perth L) 

Foiilds, J. F. (Port .\rthur NDP) 

Haggerty, R. ( Erie L ) 

Hennessy, M. (Fort William PC) 

Lane, J. ( Algoma-Manitoulin PC ) 

Lauren, F. (Nickel Belt NDP) 

MacBeth, J. P.; Deputy Chairman (Humber PC) 

Makarchuk, M. (Brantford NDP) 

Martel, E. W. (Sudbury East NDP) 

McClellan, R. (Bellwoods NDP) 

Newman, B. ( Windsor- Walkerville L) 

Roy, A. J. ( Ottawa East L ) 

Snow, Hon. J. W.; Minister of Transportation and Communications (Oalcville PC) 

Walker, Hon. G.; Minister of Correctional Services (London South PC) 

Wildman, B. (Algoma NDP) 




Ontario NO. 58 



Legislature of Ontario 
Debates 

Official Report (Hansard) 



Third Session, 31st Parliament 

Thursday, May 31, 1979 
Afternoon Sitting 

Speaker: Honourable John E. Stokes 
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, QC 



CONTENTS 



Contents of the proceedings reported in this issue of Hansard appears at the back, 
together with an alphabetical list of the speakers taking part. 

Reference to a cumulative index of previous issues can be obtained by caUing the 
Hansard Reporting Service indexing stafiE at (416) 965-2159. 



Hiansard subscription price is $15 per session from: Sessional Subscription Service, 
Printing Services Branch, Ministry of Government Services, Ninth Floor, Ferguson Block, 
Parliament Buildings, Toronto M7A 1N3; phone (416) 965-2238. 



Published by the Legislature of the Province of Ontario. 
Editor of Debates: Peter Braiman. 



I 



2365 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



The House met at 2 p.m. 
Prayers. 

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY 

NEW PLANNING BILL 

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I take 
great pleasure in tabling for the House the 
white paper on the Planning Act, which sets 
out the approach this government will take 
in drafting a new planning act for our 
province. Honourable members are all 
aware, I am sure, that the white paper has 
been through a long review period. There 
are reasons for this. 

First, it should be pointed out that this 
white paper does not refer to a series of 
simple amendments to the existing act. 
Rather, it proposes a new act to ensure that 
the planning process in Ontario meets cur- 
rent needs and future expectations. The 
Planning Act, like many other acts, receives 
limited attention from the public. Yet it is 
one of the most important acts of this prov- 
ince as it sets the rules by which municipali- 
ties control development and hence deter- 
mines to a great degree exactly how this 
province will evolve. 

When the original act was passed in 1946, 
Ontario was heading into an exciting and 
demanding period of growth. The province 
was on the verge of a baby boom. It was 
facing a time when hundreds of thousands 
of immigrants were arriving to start new 
lives for themselves and their children in 
our province. It was a period of rapid de- 
velopment, unparalleled in our history, 
when the needs for housing and for indus- 
trial and commercial expansion were para- 
mount. 

The success of that act in bringing order 
to development, while ensuring that all 
segments of society were able to benefit, is 
readily apparent. For more than 30 years, 
the original Planning Act stood us in re- 
markably good stead. Yet times change, 
and the act must also change. Our concerns 
about providing more housing, more in- 
dustry and more commerce have been 
enlarged to include concerns about pro- 



Thursday, May 31, 1979 

tecting our heritage and enviroimient and to 
ensure that valuable resources such as agri- 
cultural land, are retained. In addition, we 
recognize that municipalities are much 
more capable of looking after more of their 
own planning interests than in the past. 

Without going into specifics at this time, 
I would like to state briefly that the main 
changes proposed by the white paper in- 
volve: Refining the role and interests of 
the province in local planning so that there 
will be no interference in municipal matters, 
unless it is necessary to protect the provin- 
cial interest; streamlining the planning pro- 
cess in Ontario by cutting red tape and by 
providing municipalities which are capable 
with more autonomy in deciding their own 
local planning issues; and altering the role 
of the municipal board when it deals with 
planning matters so that it becomes solely 
an appellate body able to deal with issues 
more quickly and efficiently. 

I wish to make clear that the white paper 
represents a firm commitment by this gov- 
ernment. Recommendations have been ar- 
rived at only after careful deliberation. I 
would add that because of the extensive 
public input we encouraged throughout the 
review process we are convinced that a firm 
basis exists for the changes that we propose. 

In 1975, a committee chaired by Eli 
Comay, professor of environmental studies 
at York University, began a complete review 
of the act. Other committee members were 
Earl Berger and Eric Hardy, with Dennis 
Hefferon as legal counsel. Meetings were 
held across this province by the committee 
to elicit public response. More than 300 
briefs were received to help the committee 
in preparing its recommendations. 

In June 1977 the committee's report was 
tabled in this House and distributed across 
the province for review and comment. Up- 
wards of 350 briefs were received related 
to the recommendations of the Planning Act 
Review Committee. At the same time, we 
initiated further studies and consulted with 
other ministries and agencies to arrive at a 
position that we are convinced is both far- 
sighted and responsible. The results of these 
labours are contained in the white paper. 



2366 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



It is the intention of my ministry to again 
contact local governments and other organi- 
zations and groups to explain the proposals 
before final legislation is introduced in this 
House, which should occur early next year. 
We will sponsor eight regional meetings 
across the province to explain the proposals 
in the white paper. These meetings begin 
next week in Ottawa. In the following 
three- week period, other meetings will be 
held in Sault Ste. Marie, Dryden, Thunder 
Bay, Kingston, London, Barrie and Toronto. 
During these sessions, we would hope to pro- 
vide an overview to the heads of council and 
to planning boards on the intent of the pro- 
posed legislation. 

In September, we intend to hold work- 
shops with municipal staflF, during which 
the proposals for change will be detailed. 
We have asked the municipal liaison com- 
mittee for suggestions on where and when 
these meetings should take place. While 
we are committed to the w'hite paper and the 
draft legislation, we are prepared to consider 
modifications during this final review period. 

I would at this time like to acknowledge 
the contributions of my predecessors, the 
Honourable Donald Irvine and the late John 
Rhodes, who gave this process thrust and 
direction. I think also we owe a debt of 
gratitude to Professor Comay of the Plan- 
ning Act Review Committee and to his 
associates. Last but not least, a special 
acknowledgement must be given to ministry 
staff, particularly those in the local planning 
branch of my ministry's community planning 
wing, and to the hundreds of other pro- 
vincial and municipal officials and other 
interested persons who contributed through 
briefs and comments to the preparation of 
this white paper. 

We have set a deadline of November 16 
for comment on the white paper proposals 
and on the draft legislation. It is my inten- 
tion to introduce to this House for debate 
legislation for a new act as soon as possible 
thereafter. 

Copies of the white paper, together with 
a summary which has been printed as a 
special edition of my ministry's magazine, 
Housing Ontario, are now being forwarded 
to all municipalities, planning boards, school 
boards, committees of adjustment and all 
others who have participated in or are likely 
to be affected by this review. Copies are 
also being forwarded to all members of this 
House and should be in their mailboxes at 
this time. 

This, we hope, will provide a contemporary 
and forward-looking act which will do as 



much for this province in the next 30 years 
as was done by the existing act for the past 
30 years. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
statement from the Ministry of Natural Re- 
sources and one from the Ministry of Energy. 
I don't know whether the Leader of the 
Opposition and the leader of the third party 
have received a copy of the one from Energy 
regarding radiation at Pickering. 

Mr. S. Smith: No, we have not. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I hope it will be here 
shortly; it is on its way. 

DOVER TOWNSHIP FLOODING 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would like to table the 
report of the Dover Township Flood Review 
Committee. As members will recall, I es- 
tablished this committee of non-ministry peo- 
ple to document the events and actions taken 
before and diuring the flooding this March 
in Dover township. I also instructed the 
committee to advise me how flood warning 
and response systems could be improved. 

The review committee was chaired by 
Walter Giles, Assistant Deputy Minister of 
the Environment. His members were Bill 
Brisco, a local drainage engineer, and Rosaire 
Sterling, a local cash crop farmer. The re- 
view committee's report is based largely 
on discussions with the agencies that have 
flood emergency responsibilities and also on 
interviews with many of the people who suf- 
fered hardship and property damage during 
the flooding. 

The report contains 32 recommendations, 
26 of which are aimed at reducing the 
chances of more flood disasters in the area. 
Without going into detail, let me say that 
these 26 recommendations cover four main 
areas that need to be addressed: preparation 
of an ice management plan; re-evaluation of 
the partially-constructed dikes along the 
lower Thames; preparation of a co-ordinated 
flood contingency plan for Dover township; 
and, finally, the need to increase awareness 
among local residents that floods will occur 
again and to provide better communications 
between local residents and the appropriate 
agencies when those floods occur. 

Many of these recommendations can also 
be applied to other areas of the province 
Where flooding occurs. For example, one rec- 
ommendation is that interagency flood com- 
mittees should be established and meet an- 
nually to ensure that flood contingency plans 
for a particular watershed are up to date and 
properly co-ordinated. The committee also 
recommends that conservation authorities 
should promote flood contingency planning 



MAY 31, 1979 



2367 



by municipalities more aggressively. The 
committee also points out that an ice man- 
agement seminar should be sponsored by the 
province. 

I am also pleased to see the committee 
members, after a thorough review, judged 
the province's policy on planning for flood 
emergencies to be, in their words, "basically 
sound." The committee found only a limited 
number of areas where the policy could be 
improved. This was the first real test of that 
policy since it was established three years 
ago. In that time, we have not experienced 
widespread flooding until recently. My staflE 
now intends to review that policy on the 
basis of the report and the experience that 
has been gained elsewhere this year. I am 
sure members will agree that this is the kind 
of policy that needs to be constantly im- 
proved wherever possible. 

I would hke to thank the committee mem- 
bers for a thorough and timely report. My 
ministry will certainly review in detail all 
the recommendations. I am sure the report 
will also receive the careful attention of 
officials in Dover township and the Lower 
Thames Valley Conservation Authority. 

Copies of this report will be sent to those 
residents whose homes were flooded and will 
be available in the Chatham public library. 
They will also be made available to local 
news media. Other copies will be available 
at the Dover township office and the offices 
of the Lower Thames Valley Conservation 
Authority and the Ministry of Natural Re- 
sources. Comments from the public on this 
report will be most welcome. 

TRITIUM IN DRINKING WATER 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Due to the anxiety caused 
by the Toronto Star's banner headline on 
"Radiation Traces Found in Pickering Drink- 
ing Water," I have asked Ontario Hydro to 
provide the following information which I 
would like to share with the House and the 
public. 

First, despite the implications in the news- 
papers, I have positive assurances from On- 
tario Hydro that the traces routinely found 
in the water present absolutely no danger 
to people, wildhfe, plantlife, Scotch drinkers 
or anybody else. 

[2:15] 

Ontario Hydro has been monitoring the 
drinking water ever since the station went 
into operation. The tritium measurements 
are recorded and placed on record as part 
of Ontario Hydro's quarterly technical re- 
ports which are available to interested mem- 
bers of the public. The measurements are 



under the heading, "Pickering Township 
Drinking Water." 

The maximum permissible amount in the 
drinking water is set by the Atomic Energy 
Control Board at a level which ensures that 
anyone drinking the water would not ex- 
ceed their aimual permissible limit of 500 
millirem. Ontario Hydro's own standard is 
such that no release exceeds one per cent 
of the AECB figure. That is five millirem. 

The amounts of tritium in the water 
supply are far lower than Hydro's own con- 
servative standards. In fact, drinking the 
water in question would result in far less 
than one millirem per year. To put this one 
millirem a year in perspective, natural back- 
ground radiation is about 100 millirem a 
year. 

The total amount of radiation from all 
sources at Pickering is about three millirem 
a year. Of that, less than one millirem 
represents total tritium emissions and an even 
smaller amount represents the drinking water 
measurements. In fact, the amounts of 
tritium released to the lake from Pickering 
contribute only a small proportion of the 
total levels which come mainly from cosmic 
rays and weapons testing. 

Mr. S. Smith: Point of order: The Minis- 
ter of Energy also sent a statement on the 
damaged boilers at Pickering nuclear station. 
I don't know if he intended to read it. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I didn't get a copy of that. 

Mr. S. Smith: The minister didn't get 
a copy? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: It was kind of a busy 
morning this morning. I would Hke to thank 
the Leader of the Opposition. 

Mr. Peterson: Do you know what's in it? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Ah, yes, I went over it at 
20 to two. It took a little while to get the 
copy. 

Mr. Peterson: We have a lot of confidence 
in the minister. 

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, we do. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: The honourable members 
are so wise. 

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Following my last state- 
ment to the House on May 25 concerning the 
damaged boilers at Pickering B generation 
station, some honourable members posed 
further questions regarding the contracts for 
these boilers. I said at that time that I would 
seek further information from Ontario Hydro 
on these questions and provide it to the 
House. 



2368 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



On May 28 the Leader of the Opposition 
asked why competitive tenders were called 
for the Pickering A boilers in 1965 and 
for Bruce A in 1970, but not called in 1973 
and 1974 for the Pickering B boilers. 

The main reason for ordering a repeat of 
the Pickering A boilers for Pickering B 
station from the same supplier was to obtain 
the benefits of economy, efficiency and oper- 
ating standardization. I think I mentioned that 
in the previous statement. 

The Pickering A boilers had performed 
well and continue to provide excellent serv- 
ice. I should like to emphasize that Pickering 
A has achieved world renown since its four 
units began operation between April 1, 1971, 
and May 1973. It has broken many produc- 
tion records and, in 1977, on a world-wide 
basis, Pickering A's four units ranked first, 
third, fourth and sixth for reliability among 
more than 80 nuclear units of 500 mega- 
watts or over. Hydro's objective in reordering 
the boilers for Pickering B was to achieve 
the same high level of performance as for 
Pickering A. 

As I mentioned in my statement of May 
25, Ontario Hydro advises me that at the 
time Hydro placed its orders with Babcock 
and Wilcox Canada Limited for the Picker- 
ing B boilers, that company was the only 
one in Canada which had the necessary 
manufacturing facilities in place — and I un- 
derline "in place" — to build this type of 
boiler. 

It is quite likely, as suggested by the hon- 
ourable member for York South (Mr. Mac- 
Donald), that had another Canadian com- 
pany been awarded a contract for nuclear 
boilers in the early 1970s, it could have 
tooled up and delivered the boilers. How- 
ever, I am advised by Ontario Hydro that 
the typical schedule for a repeat order re- 
quires about 14 months less than for tender- 
ing for new designs. 

As honourable members will recall, the 
1973-74 period was one of great turmoil and 
uncertainty in the energy field due to world 
crude oil price increases and embargoes. In 
this context, Ontario Hydro felt there was 
some urgency to order the boilers for Picker- 
ing B and to have them delivered. Clearly, 
this was an additional factor favouring a 
reorder from Babcock and Wilcox Canada 
Limited. 

Nevertheless, as mentioned earlier, the pre- 
dominant consideration in Hydro's decision 
not to go to tender for the Pickering B boilers 
was to obtain the benefits of economy, effi- 
ciency and operating standardization. 

As the attached chronology indicates. 
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited placed 



the order for the nuclear boilers for the 
Candu station being built in Korea with 
Foster Wheeler Limited of St. Catharines 
after a competitive tender in 1976, some two 
years after the Pickering B orders were 
placed. 

Despite the fact there is a constant flow 
of information between AECL and Hydro, 
Hydro informs me it received absolutely no 
information from AECL which suggests that 
AECL's decision was based on any concerns 
AECL may have had with the Babcock and 
Wilcox design. If the Leader of the Opposi- 
tion has information to the contrary, I should 
be happy to receive it. 

The honourable Leader of the Opposition 
further inquired as to the financial status of 
Babcock and Wilcox to rectify the defects 
found in the Pickering B boilers. Ontario 
Hydro's objective is to get the boilers in- 
stalled in order to limit delays for the in- 
service dates for the Pickering B units and 
to ensure the provisions of the contract are 
met. I can only repeat this is undeniably a 
complex and difficult legal question which 
will require considerable discussion before 
it is ultimately resolved. 

The fact that Hydro did tender for the 
Darlington boilers answers the question 
asked of me by the member for York South. 
The scheduled delivery dates for these boilers 
ranges from March 31, 1982 to May 15, 
1985. However, Hydro has directed Babcock 
and Wilcox to hold off on any signfficant 
work on the contract. 

I would like to assure the honourable 
leader of the New Democratic Party that the 
risk certainly does not rest solely with On- 
tario Hvdro. The contracts with Babcock 
and Wilcox require the boilers meet per- 
formance specifications. The manufacturer 
will be required to rectify anv deficiencies 
in performance resulting from deficiencies in 
design or manufacture. 

Attached to the statement. Mr. Speaker, is 
the chronology of large Candu nuclear boiler 
awards, starting with Pickering A in 1965 
and going through to the last one, Darling- 
ton, in 1978. 
[Later (2:28):] 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid 
this isn't my day. 

Mr. Cassidy: You've had most of it so far. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: The copy of the statement 
which I read had some pages typed on one 
side and some on two, and I missed a couple 
of pages. If I may, I'd like to read them 
now for the benefit of Hansard. 

Mrs. Campbell: It didn't make any dif- 
ference. 



MAY 31, 1979 



2369 



Mr. Cassidy: Nobody noticed the dilFerence. 
Hon. Mr. Auld: Between one thing and 
another it's been a busy day. 

Mr. Foulds: Two portfolios are getting 
too much for you. 

Ms. Cigantes: Dispense. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I thought it seemed longer 
when I read it this morning. I would like to 
add pages four and six. Page four follows 
after "economy, efficiency and operating 
standardization." 

Mr. Foulds: This is called an addendum. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: It reads as follows: The 
Leader of the Opposition also asked about 
tendering by Atomic Energy of Canada 
Limited for boilers between 1970 and 1974. 
Attached to my statement for the information 
of honourable members is a chronology of 
large Candu nuclear boiler awards, indicating 
who placed the orders, which of the con- 
tracts were tendered and which companies 
were awarded the contracts. As the chronology 
shows, AECL tendered for boilers for three 
reactors in 1973 and 1974, namely, Gentilly, 
Argentina and Lepreau, and in each case 
AECL awarded the contract to Babcock and 
Wilcox. 

The Leader of the Opposition also asked 
if I was unaware that Babcock and Wilcox 
did not receive the AECL contract for a 
Candu station in Korea, partly because of 
AECL's concern that the Babcock and Wilcox 
design would produce the tube crimping that 
did in fact occur. He further suggested that 
Babcock and Wilcox had been awarded the 
contract for Darlington, despite the fact that 
Hydro had been warned that that design 
would lead to these very problems. 

Then page five follows and now I am 
reading from page six. 

Mr. Foulds: These pages aren't concurrent. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: As I reported last week, 
these discussions— the discussions about the 
repair of the boilers— are currently under 
way between senior officials of Hydro and 
Babcock and Wilcox. It would be inappro- 
priate for me to comment further. 

The leader of the New Democratic Party 
asked whether in the case of previous con- 
tracts or of the Darlington contract there is 
any guarantee from Babcock and Wilcox that 
the very complex and sophisticated boilers 
will in fact work. 

Ms. Cigantes: You don't need the boilers 
at Darlington at all. Delete DarHngton. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I should point out that 
the order for the Darlington boilers was 
placed with Babcock and Wilcox in 1978 in 
competitive tender and theirs was the lowest 



evaluated tender. Ontario Hydro decided to 
go to tenders due to design and scale dif- 
ferences from the previous orders. 

The Darlington boiler contract was awarded 
before the discovery of defects in the Picker- 
ing B boilers. Ontario Hydro advises me 
that there was no intimation, prior to the 
placing of the DarHngton order, which sug- 
gested that any difficulty would be en- 
countered in the manufacturing of boilers at 
Babcock and Wilcox. 

Ms. Cigantes: You don't need the Darling- 
ton boilers. Forget them. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I apologize to the House 
for the mixup that I have caused. 

Mr. Breithaupt: It is much clearer now. 

[Reverting (2:23):] 

MUNICIPAL LEGISLATION 

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this after- 
noon I will be introducing a bill which con- 
tains a number of amendments to the regional 
acts. Many of these proposed amendments 
are common to all 10 acts. Each region will 
be able to contract for insurance to protect 
the members of its council or any local board, 
to invest in credit unions, to accept historical 
documents, and to control parking on regional 
property. Similar amendments were made 
to the Municipal Act last fall. 

The bill will also increase the maximum 
rate of interest a regional council may charge 
an area municipality for failure to pay its 
levy, from one per cent to 1.25 per cent 
per month. 

Other amendments would apply only to 
certain regions. In regions where all water 
and sewer services are a regional responsi- 
bility, the region will be authorized to enter 
into agreements to maintain and repair pipes 
in condominiums. 

In regions where the planning powers of 
the council are described as being the powers 
of a planning board, it will be made clear 
that the quorum for the council on official 
plan matters is the same as for all other 
regional responsibilities. In Ottawa-Carleton 
and York, two changes are being made that 
were inadvertently left out of the Metric 
Conversion Statute Law Amendment Act. 

In regions'* where the region provides 
sewage treatment facilities and the area mu- 
nicipahties provide local sewers, the region 
will be authorized to control the discharge 
from local sewers into regional sewers and 
treatment plants. 

A number of amendments proposed in 
this bill are unique to one region and are 
included as a result of local requests. In 
Ottawa-Carleton these amendments will 



2370 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



abolish the library boards in Nepean and 
Vanier and will increase the size of the Ot- 
tawa- Carleton Transit Commission. In Nia- 
gara, the bill will remove the right of ap- 
peal of the method used in calculating sewer 
rates. In York, it will transfer the responsi- 
bihty for solid waste disposal to the region. 
In Waterloo a minor boundary change is 
being made at the request of the region and 
the cities of Kitchener and Waterloo. In 
addition, because of the method by which 
the city of Waterloo selects its regional 
councillors, a small change is included to 
provide a procedure in the event of acclama- 
tions or tied votes. A further amendment 
will allow the regional municipality of Water- 
loo to establish uniform sewer rates. 

ORAL QUESTIONS 

TRITIUM IN DRINKING WATER 

Mr. S. Smith: If it's not the Minister 
of Energy's day, perhaps I should try ask- 
ing him a few questions. I will ask him, 
first of all, about the subject of the tritium 
in the drinking water of the town of Picker- 
ing, appreciating the minister's statement that 
the amount is extremely small and well below 
anything that would even remotely consti- 
tute a hazard. 

Would the minister, nonetheless, assist 
the House by providing us with some addi- 
tional information? In particular, can he tell 
us when this tritium was first discovered in 
the drinking water, whether this is a regular 
monitoring process and what the level was? 
[2:301 

Can he also tell us whether tritium is 
related to the leakage at the Pickering 
nuclear station, and if so, where the leakage 
is taking place, what is the size of the leak- 
age and whether there is a particular leak 
that is responsible for the recent findings? 

I guess basically what I would like from 
the minister is a more complete report on 
the level of tritium that is leaking. What 
is the allowable level? Has there been any 
change recently? What is the nature of the 
monitoring process? And so on. Can we 
have a more complete report? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I beheve that monitor- 
ing has been going on since before the plant 
actually came into operation— I think from 
about the time a decision was made to site 
the plant at its present location. 

I believe the background level would be 
something in the neighbourhood of the exist- 
ing level. There might be a shght increase 
because of the fact that the plant itself does 



have some general emission, as everybody 
knows; a very minuscule one. 

I would remind the honourable members 
that there was a shutdown because of a leak 
of heavy water in one of the heat transfer— 
I've forgotten the term. Not in the boiler but 
in the heat exchanger. As I recall, it was 
such a minuscule leak that it was quite a 
while before the unit was shut down be- 
cause it took some time to locate the leak. 

I think there was one other incident in 
one of the units at Pickering where there 
was another leak of heavy water— again, I 
think, in a similar kind of operation. I'll get 
all the details of that. 

Mr. McClellan: You are really up to date 
on everything, aren't you? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Since the amounts are so 
small, and there's so much dispersion from 
the cooling water eflEluent, I'm not sure 
whether it is possible to say whether the 
current level that is found in the drinking 
water has been increased because— 

Mr. Wildman: I think you'd better share 
the work with the Minister without Port- 
foho (Mr. Wiseman). 

Hon. Mr. Auld: —of this heavy water 
leakage or whether the tritium level is about 
the same as it was this time last year. I'll 
get the records, which are available, and the 
best guess I can get as to the source. 

Mr. S. Smith: I thank the minister for his 
undertaking to obtain the information, 
although I may parenthetically express some 
surprise that he doesn't already have the 
information as to where the leak is, if there 
is a leak, and, if there's been an increase, 
what the amounts are. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I understand there is no 
current leak but there was one which I 
think all members were aware of not too 
long ago. 

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary- 
Some hon. members: Oh! oh, no. 
Mr. Speaker: That really wasn't a question. 
Mr. S. Smith: I sat down in respect of 
the fact that the minister stood. 

May I ask, by way of supplementary, 
whether the minister can comment on the 
reported statements by Mr. Steeves, of 
Hydro, that tritium is a health hazard of 
a very innocuous nature, considering the 
Canadian Environmental Advisory Council, 
as quoted in the Porter commission, has said 
there has not been any major research on 
the biological effects of tritium? In view 
of the fact that it was pointed out that this 
really is, in a sense, a Canadian responsi- 



MAY 31, 1979 



2371 



bility, can the minister say if there has been 
any such research that he knows of and can 
he report it to the House? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I can in- 
quire. I imagine there has been, but I am 
no aware of the details. I read that in the 
paper about 10 o'clock this morning and it 
took a little while to track down the neces- 
sary people to get the information. 

Ms. Gigantes: If, as the Porter commission 
suggested, the minister finds there is no major 
research on the biological eflFects of tritium, 
will he undertake to have such research 
done, so we can know that these minuscule 
amounts are not having serious biological 
effects? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that 
into consideration when I'm looking into 
the answers to the Leader of the Ojjposi- 
tion's questions. 

Mr. McCaflFrey: Point of privilege, Mr. 
Speaker: I think this is a legitimate point 
of privilege, and if it's to be otherwise de- 
scribed as clarification, I will take your 
guidance on that. Because this has happened 
a number of times in the last session I 
think it might be an appropriate time for 
me to raise this matter. 

Increasingly, under ministerial state- 
ments—and I think it's particularly so since 
the widespread concern about nuclear mat- 
ters—there have been quite detailed as well 
as lengthy statements. Properly, the opposi- 
tion leaders and opposition critics have 
access to those statements as the minister is 
reading them. It seems to me, now that we 
are in a position where there are a num- 
ber of supplementary questions on this very 
important matter, it's right and proper that 
private members of the Legislature also 
have the statement at the same time. 

Interjections. 

Mr. Speaker: That seems to have almost 
universal accord. I'll discuss that with the 
House leaders and report back. 

Mr. S. Smith: That's a good point. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on a 
point of order, so the record will show the 
straight facts, lest the impression be left 
that the ministers are not providing them for 
all of the members of the House, I think 
it should be pointed out this is in accord- 
ance with a decision made by the House 
leaders— in consultation, I believe, with the 
Speaker. 

Mrs. Gampbell: We're aware of that. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That's why I wanted 
it to show on the record. All of my col- 



leagues and I would be pleased to make 
those available, if it's the desire of the 
House. 

Mr. McClellan: It's a good suggestion. 

Mr. J. Reed: I have a supplementary of 
the minister. Can the minister tell us, as this 
statement is made with regard to the ele- 
ment tritium and if tritium is used as the 
monitoring agent for radiation leakage, are 
other elements in the system searched for at 
the same time? In other words, is tritium 
simply a baseline search that is undertaken 
or does the ministry look for things like 
cesium, strontium, iodine and so on? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I understand 
the figures I was given are for the total 
radiation from all similar sources. 

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY 

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question of the 
Minister of Energy on his statement re- 
garding the Babcock and Wilcox boiler 
matter. 

First of all, he says on page five of his 
statement that AECL had provided no in- 
formation for Hydro concerning the reasons 
it switched from the Babcock and Wilcox 
boiler to the Foster Wheeler boiler for the 
Korea reactor. 

May I ask the minister why he keeps re- 
peating this without finding out from Hydro 
why it didn't ask AECL what the reasons 
were for this sudden switch? The minister 
can see from the chronology that Babcock 
and Wilcox got all the awards from 1965 
to 1975. There is a sudden change with re- 
gard to the Korea reactor. The minister has 
said it was a competitive situation, but we 
have reason to believe the Foster Wheeler 
one was more expensive than the Babcock 
and Wilcox one. Therefore, I ask the minister 
why he is satisfied without finding out from 
Hydro why it didn't ask AECL the reason 
for this sudden change. 

Ms. Gigantes: We don't know that they 
didn't ask. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: My understanding is that 
it was a competitive tender and that Babcock 
and Wilcox's was not the lowest evaluated 
tender. 

Mr. S. Smith: Neither was Foster 
Wheeler's. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Then who was? 

Mr. S. Smith: Maybe they didn't even 
evaluate the Babcock and Wilcox tender. 

An hon. member: The government won't 
be able to get away with it much longer. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I will be delighted to ask 
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited for any 



2372 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



information the honourable members want. 
It is a federal agency and I would assume 
the information is available to the Leader 
of the Opposition if he would get his re- 
search oflBce to call them. But I will keep 
on asking questions of Hydro. I am sure they 
would have been informed by AECXi had 
there been anything AECL thought was 
wrong with any of the supphers with whom 
they were dealing. 

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: 
I want to relate this to another matter in 
the minister's statement on page five. 

The minister says Hydro's objective is to 
get the boilers installed in order to limit 
delays. That's in response to the question 
of the financial status of the company to 
rectify the matter. Since I oflFered the min- 
ister an opportunity to deny that Ontario 
Hydro had in fact decided not to go after 
Babcock and Wilcox Canada Limited for 
fear of rendering the company bankrupt, and 
since his statement does not speak of the 
public interest in terms of recovering that 
$35 million but only of limiting delays, may 
I ask him again if he endorses the notion 
that Babcock and Wilcox should be let go 
without being chased for this money, and 
if he endorses any decision Hydro might 
have made to let Babcock and Wilcox alone 
for fear of rendering them bankrupt? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I believe 1 
said, in answer to a similar question some 
time ago, that my understanding was Hydro 
wanted the work done according to the 
contract and according to the specifications. 
I assume that means all the repairs that are 
the responsibility of Babcock and Wilcox 
would be done at Babccw^'k and Wilcox's ex- 
pense. 

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: 
There has been absolutely no question in 
the minds of the authorities responsible at 
the Point Lepreau nuclear power station in 
New Brunswick, where similar deficiencies in 
boilers have been uncovered, that full re- 
sponsibility lies with Babcock and Wilcox. 
Can the minister be clear, or can we read 
the end of his ministerial statement today to 
mean that Babcock and Wilcox has got to 
come up with boilers which meet all of the 
original specifications, even if it means re- 
building them from scratch? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think that is what I 
said before. I have no idea of the terms 
of the contract with Atomic Energy of Canada 
Limited for Lepreau. It may be the same or 
similar to the Hydro contract; it may not. 
Ontario Hydro tells me it wants the work 
done according to the specifications and the 



units to perform according to the specifica- 
tions, and that is the supplier's responsibility. 

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: I wonder if 
the minister could inform the House, or the 
members of the resources development com- 
mittee representing his party, of the urgency 
and complexity of this matter, because his 
members and the members of the New 
Democratic Party have voted to postpone 
any consideration of this matter by the com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Wildman: That's nOt true. 

Mr. Nixon: Would the minister not agree 
the matter should be considered by the com- 
mittee to which it is referred without further 
delay? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: The committee makes its 
own decisions and I do not purport to inter- 
fere with them. I am anxious to see Hydro 
get on with the job, to tell members the 
truth. 

Mr. Wildman: A point of privilege, Mr. 
Speaker- 
Mrs. Campbell: You get so uptight. 

Mr. Wildman: The member for Brant- 
Oxford-Norfolk knows full well that right 
now there are negotiations going on in the 
steering committee of the resources develop- 
ment committee in order to try to bring that 
matter before one of the committees of this 
House. 

Mrs. Campbell: Which one? 

Mr. Wildman: Nobody right now is try- 
ing to postpone it. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, surely you would 
be aware of the vote taken in the committee 
on Tuesday evening. 

Mr. Wildman: There was no vote. 

Mr. Warner: There was no vote. 

Mr. Nixon: There was a vote taken, 
appealing the ruling of the chairman who 
indicated the committee did not have the 
right to change the order of its business 
which, with respect to the coromittee, was 
really preposterous. 

Mr. Warner: There was no vote. 

Mr. Nixon: There was a vote taken; you 
and the Tories voted together. 

Mr. T. P. Reid: As usual. 

Interjections. 

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting into 
the same diflBculty we got into on Tuesday 
afternoon. There is a difiFerence of opinion, 
a difference of interpretation about some- 
thing that went on elsewhere; I am not 
going to countenance any further debate 
on it. 



MAY 31, 1979 



2373 



Mr. Martel: It's a false statement. They 
are not telling the truth. 

Mrs. Campbell: Oh, come on. 

Mr. Nixon: Make him withdraw that. 

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable mem- 
ber for Sudbury East has accused another 
member of lying. He knows that is not 
acceptable in this chamber. 

Mr. Martel: That's two days in a row 
they have come in with that nonsense and 
111 not withdraw it. 

Interjections. 
Mr. Speaker: Order. 
Mr. Warner: Total distortion. 
Mr. Speaker: Would the honourable mem- 
ber care to reconsider? 

Mr. Martel: No, I would not care to re- 
consider because I'm tired of this guy's lies. 

Mr. Martel withdrew from the chamber. 

Applause. 

Interjections. 
[2:45] 

Ml. di Santo: On a point of personal 
privilege, Mr. Speaker. I was the one who 
spoke in the committee on this very subject. 

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said I would not 
hear any more argument or debate on some- 
thing that happened outside of this House. 
I don't think it is appropriate to be trying 
to accomplish in this House something you 
weren't able to accomplish in the com- 
mittee. It is the responsibihty of the com- 
mittee to report to the House and to the 
Chair if there is something it can't resolve 
there. 

Mr. di Santo: Can I ask that the record 
be corrected? 

Mr. Speaker: What record? I am not in 
a position to know what went on in the 
committee so I am not in a position to know 
whether the record is correct or not. 

Mr. Riddell: It's a broken record back 
here. 

Mr. Foulds: I would like to ask the 
minister as a supplementary whether or not 
the implication of his last reply is that the 
specifications by Hydro were inadequate? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Let the member reread 
my reply. 

Mr. Foulds: That is not an answer. 

Mr. Speaker: In connection with the last 
incident, lest the matter go any further, I 
think I would be remiss if I did not remind 
all honourable members that it is taken for 
granted in this chamber that all honourable 
members are indeed honourable members 



and would not do anything to misconstrue 
something that took place here or elsewhere. 

I am in no position to determine from the 
facts available to me what are the facts or 
what is the proper interpretation. I would 
just like to caution all honourable members 
that anything they say in this House is fact 
in their own honest opinion. I would like 
them to keep that in mind when they are 
making allegations back and forth. I have to 
assume that all honourable members are 
indeed honourable members. 

Mr. Cassidy: I have another question for 
the Minister of Energy relating to the safety 
of the Rolphton nuclear power plant in 
eastern Ontario. 

On May 10 and again last Thursday, the 
minister made statements to this House 
indicating that the nuclear power station at 
Rolphton was shut down only for normal 
housekeeping maintenance. Was the minister 
informed by Hydro that radioactive heavy 
water has been leaking from tubes in the 
heat exchange system at that plant since 
September 1978? 

Is the minister aware that these leaks 
constitute a danger to safety because of the 
danger of release of radioactive tritium into 
the atmosphere? When did the minister be- 
come aware that Hydro has decided to post- 
pone the reopening of the Rolphton power 
plant at least until June 16 because it has 
been unable until now to complete repairing 
these problems? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: As far as the first part of 
the question is concerned the information I 
have from Ontario Hydro is that it was 
doing routine maintenance. I do know from 
previous reports that routine maintenance 
may include a number of things which may 
have happened some time before but were 
not severe enough or serious enough to 
cause a shutdown until the normal main- 
tenance period came along. 

As far as the second part of the question 
is concerned, I was informed yesterday 
that it was apparent the maintenance was 
taking longer than originally anticipated and 
they were now thinking the plant would 
reopen about, give or take a few days, 
June 16. 

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the 
plant is now going to be closed until June 
16 and since it is clear there are safety 
problems, despite the minister's statement 
that the plant was shut down only for normal 
housekeeping maintenance, can the minister 
explain why, as recently as a couple of 
hours ago at the House leaders' meeting, 
both the Conservative Party and the Liberal 



2374 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Party refused to have a debate on the select 
committee's report, which recommended the 
Rolphton plant stay shut until this matter 
of safety could be considered by the select 
committee. 

Will the government now reconsider that 
position so this House can consider that re- 
port and so that the safety questions at the 
Rolphton nuclear power plant can be ex- 
plored by a committee of this Legislatmre 
before that plant is reopened? 

Mr. S. Smith: Why doesn't the leader of 
the NDP let it go before the committee? 
That is where it should be discussed, not in 
the House. We don't need a debate here 
on it. 

Mr. Foulds: The committee has reported, 
you dummy. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I haven't 
changed my position, which I thought I 
made pretty clear in the statement I gave 
the House about 10 days ago. As far as my 
information is concerned, the Atomic Energy 
Control Board, which is the licensing agency, 
is quite satisfied with the safety aspects of 
the plant. 

In fact, I understand the 10 things that it 
had been suggested be done over a period 
of time have all either been completed or 
found to be unnecessary after further study. 
Two of the modifications, I guess I'd call 
them, which have been installed are not yet 
in use because they are being tested. When 
they have been tested satisfactorily I assume 
that the control board's approval will be 
altered to include the use or the applica- 
tion of those modifications. 

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: I wonder 
if the minister realizes the full implications 
of what he is telling us? Does he under- 
stand that these leaks in the heat exchange 
system, in combination with an emergency 
core cooling system which has not even 
been modified in the patch-up kind of way 
that the AECB recommended, when these 
two things are going on at the same time at 
that plant there are grave questions about 
the safety of the plant, and doesn't he 
think it's time for the government to recom- 
mend to Hydro that there should be a com- 
plete investigation of safety at the plant, 
given these two circumstances? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think I just answered 
that. 

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, 
would the minister encourage his members 
—and one only hopes that the NDP will do 
the same— on the steering committee of the 



Hydro committee, now that Rolphton will 
not be open for another few weeks, to now 
take up the matter of Rolphton in front of 
the select committee on Hydro affairs— where 
witnesses can be questioned, where people 
can have documents presented to them 
line by line and be asked for explanation— 
which is obviously the place for the Rolphton 
matter to be discussed, rather than have a 
debate in the House, where no witnesses can 
be questioned and no expert evidence 
obtained? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I'll think 
about that. 

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING 

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques- 
tion for the Minister of Industry and Tour- 
ism about Ontario's buy-Canadian policy 
and the specific promise of government to 
give a 10 per cent preference in the Ontario 
government's purchasing of Canadian goods. 
Can the minister now say how much is spent 
annually on the purchase of goods and 
services by this province, what percentage 
of this spending is on imported goods and 
services, and when the government intends 
to begin releasing the progress reports on 
the replacement of imports of goods and 
services by ministry, which the minister 
promised to provide at the government pur- 
chasing conference last November? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are attempting to 
compile that information. There are some 
difficulties in doing so, which are partly on 
account of the fact that for a lengthy period 
of time there wasn't a statistical analysis 
kept in this or, I might add, any other gov- 
ernment in Canada, which would give a defi- 
nitive answer to that question. We are 
trying to set up systems to do that now and 
I'll have a report for the honourable mem- 
ber shortly. 

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In recent 
speeches the minister has been saying that 
the government will consider preferences 
that are greater than 10 per cent for Cana- 
dian goods which are critical, high capital 
and high technology purchases. Is the min- 
ister aware that the Ministry of Govern- 
ment Services purchasers are not aware of 
that guideline and say that it is not applied 
in the purchases that are carried out through 
their ministry? Can the minister say where 
that policy of special purchasing preference 
is put down on paper, and can he give us 
some specific examples of whether or not 
that policy has been applied in certain cases 



MAY 31, 1979 



2375 



in order to encourage the development of 
high technology goods here in Ontario or in 
Canada? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don't recall the 
exact details, but I would think the Hawker 
Siddeley streetcars were an example of a 
place in which that policy was implemented. 
A 10 per cent preference has been in place 
since 1976 I think, or 1974- 

Mr. S. Smith: That wasn't buy Canadian, 
that was buy Ontario. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No it wasn't. With 
regard to the second part of the question 
as to where we would give more than 10 
per cent, that is on a case-by-case basis. 
That often comes down to a decision made 
and a recommendation from the ministry 
involved to cabinet to ascertain whether in 
the view of the government as a whole this 
is one of those cases that merits that special 
consideration. That policy is well in place. 

Mr. di Santo: Since every other industrial 
country, and the minister may have learned 
something in Japan, is entrenched by domes- 
tic policy either by non-tariff barrier protec- 
tion or outright incentives to domestic firms, 
and since these habits will firmly remain even 
after the GATT negotiations are completed, 
doesn't the minister think he should start 
devising a policy for the province of Ontario, 
since right now we don't have one? Doesn't 
he think he should study the policies of the 
other countries and make comparisons and 
report to this House so we know where he 
stands, since he is saying one thing and 
the government through another minister is 
saying another thing? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There has been no 
question about the fact of our 10 per cent 
procurement policy. It has been in place 
since 1974. 

Mr. di Santo: That's not what the minister 
of Government Services (Mr. Henderson) said 
Thursday. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, no; there is no 
evidence I have heard here today of a situa- 
tion in which that 10 per cent preference 
was not given. I can only tell the member 
that although he may feel we should pay 
more than 10 per cent and I respect that 
view, nonetheless, as your leader indicated 
a moment ago, our policy is 10 per cent, 
plus more under special circumstances. That, 
to my knowledge, has been, in each and 
every case, the system honoured and obeyed. 
If you have evidence to the contrary I would 
like to receive it. 



EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT 
FUND GRANT 

Mr. Bradley: I have a question for the 
Minister of Industry and Tourism. It relates 
to his statement of May 24 in which he in- 
dicated that $420,000 will be provided 
through the Employment Development Fund 
to assist TRW Canada Limited in a $5 
million expansion in St. Catharines and an 
$8 million project in Tillsonburg. Would 
the minister state to this House, unequivo- 
cally, that the expenditure by TRW would 
not have taken place without the $420,000 
from the Employment Development Fimd? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. 

Mr. Bradley: In view of the fact I attend- 
ed a sod-breaking ceremony in St. Catharines 
on April 6, four days before the announce- 
ment of the Employment Development Fund 
in the provincial budget on April 10, and in 
view of the fact it was known in business 
circles months before the budget was brought 
down that TRW was to establish a plant 
outside of St. Catharines, would the minister 
not agree the expansion is taking place as 
a result of favourable markets being taken 
advantage of by a capable management and 
a competent work force? Would tiie minister 
not agree that since we all assume TRW 
would not have prior knowledge of the con- 
tents of the provincial budget, the $420,000 
really represents a windfall to TRW? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I wouldn't. TRW 
proceeded on the basis of a telegram sent 
by me on behalf of the government of On- 
tario on January 4. The reason for this is 
that we thought it would be quite inappro- 
priate to lose opportunities that might other- 
wise stay in this province simply because the 
budget had not yet come down. 

An hon. member: I thought the budget 
was supposed to be secret. 

Mr. S. Smith: Did you prerelease the 
budget to all firms in Ontario? 

Mr. T. P. Reid: Table the telegram. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would be happy to 
read the telegram. The company was facing 
certain dates upon which it had to indicate 
to its parent board its intentions and its 
ability to locate in Ontario. Rather than 
say: "I am sorry. We won't have our budget 
in place before your meeting at which you 
are going to make some decisions," we de- 
cided at a cabinet meeting, after consultation, 
to give that undertaking. I will be pleased 
to read that telegram to the House. This is 
to TRW Canada Limited: 

"Reference to your conversation with 
Duncan Allan, I am pleased that TRW is 



2376 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



pursuing a major new investment in Ontario 
and wish you success in your proposal to the 
parent board. As discussed with Mr. Allan, 
the Ontario government is prepared to assist 
in the financing of your proposed expansion 
plan to the extent of fully subsidizing the 
interest costs at the Canadian prime rate on 
$1 million over a five-year term. This repre- 
sents a present value in the order of $420,000, 
assuming a discount rate of 11 per cent, 
thereby substantially oflFsetting the incentive 
eflFect in alternative locations which you out- 
lined to us. Again, let me repeat that we 
welcome industrial expansion in our province 
and will assist TRW Canada Limited in 
creating new jobs for our work force/' 

[3:00] 

You will follow the way we set that out, 
which was at that point in time the tradi- 
tional way we were assisting firms by way 
of the Ontario Business Incentives Program. 
That program, OBIP, for those cases over 
$250,000 is essentially replaced by an up- 
front grant which I would remind the mem- 
ber is exactly the same in terms of its net 
impact on the company as the former OBIP 
grants were. I would point out to the mem- 
ber, for example, that OBIPs have been 
traditionally used by the government for very 
many years and with a lot of success. This 
case is a perfect example of where the 
OBIP assistance we offered, under our pro- 
grams then in place, is exactly the same cash 
equivalent as the grant from the EDF. 

Mr. Cassidy: What is the nature of the 
job guarantee which has been given to the 
Ontario government by TRW in return for 
the Ontario government's grant? Will the 
Ontario taxpayers get their money back if 
that job guarantee is not in fact met? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Absolutely. The 
terms of the contract signed in each and 
every EDF case is that in the event the 
job commitments are not reached in their 
entirety all of the money comes back to 
the government. 

Mr. Epp: A supplementary question to 
the minister: Would the minister not agree 
that this is a prime example of how the 
government is taking money from the have- 
nots, through taxation, and giving money to 
the haves? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I really must say 
that is just part of a larger debate as to 
whether we should allow companies to go 
to other jurisdictions or not. I must point 
out to the member's party that I have in 
front of me a list— and just to take one 
example in the riding of Quinte: In the 



last six years there has been the equiva- 
lent of cash grants by way of OBIPs to the 
tune of about $2.5 million. They were 
exactly that type. 

Many of those firms, the member could 
equally argue, were well enough off not to 
merit this type of support, but I tell mem- 
bers I have not heard a word from that 
side of the House saying that all of these 
OBIP loans, which are the same as a cash 
grant, were wrong things to do. I totally 
and categorically disagree with what the 
member is saying. We are going to con- 
tinue to pay money where we know we 
can create jobs. I think it is much better 
to pay the private sector to create jobs 
which otherwise wouldn't be created than 
to pay money for unemployment insurance. 

BONAR AND BEMIS DISPUTE 

Mr. Mackenzie: A question of the Attorney 
General: Is the minister aware that Bonar 
and Bemis, of Burlington, who have been 
involved in a strike situation with Local 
8401 of the United Steelworkers of America 
since May 1, are using Professional Trans- 
port Services of Streetsville to act as 
strikebreakers; and that employees of this 
firm were responsible, yesterday, for delib- 
erately ramming an automobile driven by 
striking members of the plant, forcing it into 
the ditch and threatening to roll it over, 
causing possibly serious damage and even 
death to the people inside the car? Has he 
been made aware of the incident and is he 
prepared to investigate this hit-run tactic 
of the company? 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: No, I am not aware 
of the incident. I am quite prepared to look 
into the matter, in view of the seriousness 
of the allegation from the honourable mem- 
ber. I assume the honourable member, if 
necessary, will supply me with any addi- 
tional information that may be required. 

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: Will the 
minister also initiate action to look into 
the use of strikebreakers, hopefully lead- 
ing to the banning of their use in a legal 
strike situation in the province of Ontario; 
both to bring about more justice in the 
negotiating situation and to prevent such 
incidents, which can lead to serious in- 
juries or death? 

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It has appeared to 
me that there are many different interpreta- 
tions of the term "strikebreaker." I would 
be happy to discuss again the matters raised 
by the honourable member with the Minister 
of Labour (Mr. Elgie). .: . i:., ,i .;: -!.. 



MAY 31, 1979 



2377 



LIQUOR AND WINE PRICES 

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
question of the Minister of Consumer and 
Commercial Relations. Is the minister satis- 
fied with the action of the Liquor Control 
Board of Ontario in making continuous price 
increases for its various products without 
particular notice to the public? 

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, that is not 
true, and the member knows it. That is 
absolutely not true, and I welcome the oppor- 
tunity to put this into perspective. 

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario a 
week ago, and with my full knowledge, put 
through token increases which deal with 
only freight, demurrage and some fluctuations 
in Canadian currency. Those amount to 
nickels, dimes, quarters and so forth, one 
way or the other. Incidentally, at the same 
time, they also decpreased prices of 16 
brands for exactly the same reason. 

We made a commitment in April, when the 
prices went up, that one could buy the old 
inventory for the prices paid for it plus the 
markup, which had not changed, for as 
long as it stayed in the stores. The reports 
yesterday do not indicate that, of the brands 
that went up, 14 were scotches. We simply 
ran out of Ballantine's, Dewar's, The Famous 
Grouse— whatever that is. 

Mr. Foulds: The minister doesn't know? 

Hon. Mr. Drea: When one runs out of 
one's old inventory, the new product comes 
into the store at the new price. Surely the 
honourable member is not suggesting that 
I tell the liquor control board to increase all 
the prices, right up to the new ones, regard- 
less of when they were purchased. Otherwise, 
there is no other way. 

When Valpolicella goes up a nickel be- 
cause of some minor fluctuations in freight 
prices between Italian ports and the St. 
Lawrence Seaway, I do not think the liquor 
control board should announce it, because it 
will probably go down a dime next month on 
the basis of the Seaway being opened. 

Finally, to put it into perspective: If at 
any time the markups are changed, the 
public will be told. There, will be no change 
in markups this year; the honourable mem- 
ber has heard that from the Treasurer. If 
at any time the wholesale prices in Europe 
or the United States gO up, the public will 
be told immediately. But even during the 
so-called freeze last year, when there were no 
increases, month after month there were de- 
creases because of adjustments in freight and 
so on for very small amounts of money. The 
very same media that now want the board to 
announce things never used that information 



when the board supplied it to them all last 
fall and winter. I trust that puts the matter 
ino perspective. 

Mr. Breithaupt: Would the minister not 
realize that part of this approach by the board 
leads to frequent changes in wine-list pricing 
and, as a result, certain costly reprintings 
of menus and other wine lists by restauran- 
teurs, all of which are an additional, burden- 
some cost that has to be shared eventually 
by the patrons of these locations, whether 
tourists or our ovm citizens? 

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is why I said if the 
wholesale price went up it would result in a 
price increase in a restaurant. These increases 
involving nickels and dimes and quarters— 
because purchases are made in bulk for the 
restaurant trade— will not result in them 
having to change the prices on their menus. 
If there is an increase in the wholesale or 
laid-down price from Europe or elsewhere, 
the public or retail price in the store is not 
the only consideration; there is also that 
very consideration for the restauranteur. 

That is why, particularly in the case of 
scotch, we got commitments from the Scotch 
Whisky Association that there would be no 
more increases. There are pretty general 
commitments from the Ontario wine industry 
and from the British Columbia wine industry 
that there will be no increases. It is difficult 
to put a product into restaurants and to 
promote it when they go to the cost of 
having it on the menu and then either it is 
in short supply or they have to change their 
menus. 

Mr. Swart: A supplementary question, Mr. 
Speaker: Might I ask the minister if he 
agrees with the policy of the liquor control 
board in withholding information about price 
increases or not giving out information? In 
particular, does he agree with the statement 
of Olga Cyhanenko, the information officer, 
when she says the media cannot be trusted 
to explain the reasons for the increases? If 
he doesn't agree with it, what action is he 
going to take in this regard to see there is 
more openness in the increases? 

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am always delighted 
when the member for Welland-Thorold is 
looking for secret information. First of all, 
anybody can have this once a month if he 
wants it. I am sure the member will find it 
delightful reading. Beneagles Scotch is now 
$10.75. 

Mr. Swart: Don't evade the question. 
Does the minister agree with her? 

Hon. Mr. Drea: Could I humbly suggest 
to the honourable member for Welland- 
Thorold that he shut up until I have done? 



2378 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Interjections. 

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a certain level 
of decorum that we have a right to expect 
around here. Those kinds of expressions 
surely we can do without. Would you 
please withdraw that? 

Hon. Mr. Drea: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. 

Interjections. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: Coming back to the point 
the member raises, there is no secrecy by 
the board. There are price adjustments 
made in every accounting period. In the 
old days they didn't have to be done. 

Mr. Swart: Do you agree with what she 
said? 

Hon. Mr. Drea: In the old days they didn't 
have to be done because the Canadian dol- 
lar was stable. Very volatile wine prices, 
both domestic and foreign, didn't exist. 
Also, the consumer was getting ripped off 
by the board because the price was set once 
a year and if there was any decrease the 
board took it as profit and did not pass it 
on to the customer, 

I don't know what remarks that person 
made to the media, but as usual the honour- 
able member doesn't have his facts straight. 
She is not an employee of the board; she is 
an employee of the ministry. I will Jook into 
that matter and will deal with it. 

I have never found that the media couldn't 
handle the matter. 

Mr. Swart: Will the minister report back 
to the House? 

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is a difficult matter, 
as I am quite sure the media will attest 
to, because there are a great number of 
products; but I don't plan to take any 
action. I would say to the member for Wel- 
land-Thorold that if he wants to go to the 
board at any time to check the master price 
list, if he would hke to go into the bottling 
room- 
Mr. Swart: They are arbitrary. 
Interjections. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: With all due respect to 
the honourable member for Welland-Thorold, 
the remarks about the board being arbitrary 
are about as indicative of the truth as his 
general line of questioning has been in this 
regard. 

TORONTO OHC HOUSING 

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, I will address 
this question to the Minister of Housing. 
Will the minister tell the House whether 
he agreed with the letter sent by the gen- 



eral manager of the Ontario Housing Cor- 
poration on March 31, 1979 which stated 
there was no need for assisted housing in 
the area of Carlton and Yonge Streets in the 
city of Toronto? 

Even if the minister agrees with the gen- 
eral manager's assessment of housing needs 
in downtown Toronto, will he also explain his 
response on the March 5, 1979 motion of 
the city of Toronto council that said the 
city of Toronto does not accept the accu- 
racy of the statement? In addition, will 
he explain whether he agrees the city of 
Toronto has said the assisted rental pro- 
gram and the assisted home ownership pro- 
gram do not help low and moderate-income 
people? 

Hon. Mr. Bennett: On the first part of the 
question relating to subsidized housing units 
in the downtown area of Toronto: This 
statement resulted from the opportunity of 
the Metro housing authority and the Ontario 
housing authority having available to it a 
large number of units in a highrise apart- 
ment building in the area of Maple Leaf 
Gardens. 

This came about as the result of a condi- 
tion and change of zoning some months or 
years ago. Of the 500 units, it was ruled 
that 25 per cent should be made available 
to the housing authorities, either municipal 
or provincial. At no time was there any 
crossreferencing of that request, either to 
the municipal housing authority or to the 
provincial housing authority. It was strictly 
a position taken by city council. 

At the time of completion of the apart- 
ment building, it was obvious the developer 
could not rent the units until he signed an 
agreement with the province and the OHC 
to rent 125 units on a rent-supplement pro- 
gram. Once we made that agreement with 
them— if we should or if it was necessary- 
he could then commence to rent the remain- 
ing 375 units. 
[3:15] 

The province was made aware of this 
condition. In looking into the matter we 
discovered, not only from our own records 
but those of the Metropolitan housing author- 
ities, backed up by letters of the chairman 
and of the executive people of the housing 
authorities, that there was not a need for 
125 units in that particular area on a rent- 
supplement program basis. There was no 
indication in the applications that we needed 
anywhere close to 125. People were looking 
for locations in the Toronto and Metropoli- 
tan Toronto area other than that specific 
area. 



MAY 31, 1979 



2379 



We indicated clearly to city council, 
through the developer and through the Metro- 
politan housing authorities and through the 
Ontario Housing Corporation, that we could 
not, on behalf of the people of Ontario, enter 
into the supplementing of the rent of 125 
units because we did not require them. That 
statement was made by the general man- 
ager of the Ontario Housing Corporation, Mr. 
Beesley, and supported by a minister's letter 
backing up the situation. 

I must say to the member that we have an 
amendment, I believe, with the city council 
on the zoning, which clearly indicates that 
if in the future there should be some re- 
quirement for those units by any one of the 
public housing authorities governing the 
policies in this area of the province, then 
we can make a request upon the landlord 
of the day to have those units made avail- 
able to us as they are vacated by other 
tenants. 

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary: Am I cor- 
rect in my understanding of the minister 
that he wants the city of Toronto to present 
a list of people who need housing in that 
area and then he will actually be willing to 
grant permission to build there? 

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am not quite sure 
I understand the member's supplementary. 
I have nothing to add other than to say that 
in the process of reviewing applications 
that were on file, both with the Ontario 
Housing Corporation and the metropolitan 
housing corporation, it was indicated clearly 
that the need for that number of units was 
not there. 

Mr. Epp: Supplementary: I wonder 
whether the minister would be prepared to 
table in the House other examples of areas 
in Metropolitan Toronto where that same 
policy has been applied? 

Mr. di Santo: A full list. 

Hon. Mr. Bennett: As related to change 
in zoning to allow for a higher density fac- 
tor or use by a developer, I am not aware 
of other conditions or other areas where the 
term or clause has been applied. I under- 
stand this came about as a result of this 
particular structure having gone into receiv- 
ership. Because of some difficulties in finan- 
ing and one thing and another, there were 
some changes and modifications in zoning 
to allow for the completion of the building; 
and also to allow for a higher capacity that 
would give a return on that investment. 
Otherwise, as I understand it, the building 
would have sat for some time. 



The provision in the zoning is strictly a 
municipal matter. It is not one that comes 
to the Minister of Housing or to my ministry 
for any approval. It went through without 
having been referred to any of the authori- 
ties that were being obligated to rent a 
number of units under an amendment to a 
local zoning order. 

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary: Since the 
cabinet recently approved the core plan for 
the city of Toronto and since the inclusion 
of assisted housing in the downtown core is 
an essential element of the plan, how does 
the minister expect the city to provide as- 
sisted housing when he refuses to fund it? 
It is their responsibility but the ministry pro- 
vides the money. 

Is the minister not aware that his gov- 
ernment's policies are so ineflFective that they 
only serve the needs of developers seeking 
density bonuses and never lead to the pro- 
vision of assisted housing in the city of 
Toronto? Does he realize also that his failure 
to provide comprehensive housing policies 
has led to the destruction of neighbourhoods 
in south Parkdale and other inner city areas- 
Mr. Speaker: The question has been 
asked. 

Mr. Dukszta: —and other forms of sub- 
standard housing? 

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am well aware of 
the fact that we and the Ministry of Gov- 
ernment Services have been working on 
those plans relating to the core area and 
its development for housing purposes. May 
I indicate clearly to the House, and par- 
ticularly to the member, that the amendment 
was by municipal direction in relationship 
to that developer and not by the Min- 
istry of Housing nor the province of Ontario; 
let's not confuse or complicate the facts. 

It was a municipal responsibility to the 
developer and did not come through our 
ministry. If the city of Toronto felt there 
was some importance in dealing with the 
developer to get on with the project so that 
it could be rented and could return some 
revenue to the municipality, so be it. But 
let the responsibility not be transferred to 
my ministry or to this minister himself, be- 
cause very clearly it was not our responsi- 
bility. 

I would say to the member for Waterloo 
North if there should be other examples of 
this type of amendment to a zoning bylaw, 
as originally indicated by the member for 
Parkdale, I should be pleased, if I can find 
them, to table them in this House. 



2380 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



DISPOSAL OF PCBs 

Mr. Kennedy: I have a question for the 
Minister of the Environment. Would he com- 
ment on a report in yesterday's Globe and 
Mail to the eflFect that a safe PCB disposal 
method has been invented which renders 
the substance not only harmless but useful- 
Mr. Laughren: Edible. 

Mr. Kennedy: —that there has been re- 
search done at the Ontario Research 
Foundation, with the federal grant, to 
achieve this end. Is the minister aware of 
this and could he comment as to the validity 
of it and just where we are? 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, we are 
aware of it, and I am pleased the member 
should ask that question. I'm well aware 
of his interest— because of the involvement 
of the community he represents. We are 
looking at several methods whereby it may 
be possible to either destroy or convert 
material containing PCBs. At this moment 
we're not 100 per cent sure the method has 
yet been found. No one would be happier 
than us if that could be developed. 

Mr. Kennedy: Me. 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think he is right, Mr. 
Speaker. I suspect the member might be 
even happier than we are, and I can appre- 
ciate the reason for that. 

If a portable unit could be found, regard- 
less of the process, that would render the 
material harmless we would welcome it. We 
are looking at it; we'll keep constant sur- 
veillance on it. 

Indeed, in this particular instance we 
have met with the company involved as 
recently as yesterday to discuss the techni- 
cal application of it. As soon as it's proved— 
if it's proved-it will be put into full use. 

Mr. Kennedy: Supplementary, Mr. 
Speaker: Could the minister indicate just 
when we might have this further report? 
This seems to be a very positive statement. 
Is it possible to determine within a brief 
period of time if it's factual or not factual? 
As the minister knows, hearings with respect 
to PCB burning by St. Lav^n-ence Cement are 
presently suspended. Perhaps this would 
influence those hearings. 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I don't have a positive 
date in mind on when these appraisals will 
be completed. Certainly I'll try to ascertain 
that and report back to the member. 

There are some other methods right now. 
I think the plasma arc is one that is some- 
times touted as being able to destroy PCBs. 
I guess perhaps it can, but the amount de- 



stroyed at any given time is extremely 
small. It's an extremely intensive energy- 
consuming method, and it hasn't a great 
deal of practical application at this time. 
That's another method. 

I will get back to the member and 
advise him in the next day or two when we 
can expect some appraisal from the research 
foundation on the method quoted in yester- 
day's Globe and Mail. 

Mr. Hall: Could the minister advise 
whether the United States still permits 
entry of liquid PCB waste at this time? 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I'm sure of solids. As 
a matter of fact, I think the member knows 
we were having a bit of a discussion on 
this. I don't want to trust my memory on 
that. I thought it was permitted but I'd 
better be sure of that. 

I'm positive on solids, no question about 
that, there is a proposed date when they 
may be banned. I will confirm the status 
on liquid portions of PCBs for the member. 

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, could I ask if 
the minister has received any application 
from D and D Disposal to assist in the 
evaluation of this new process and the de- 
velopment of it? Is he making funds available 
to any of the other projects he mentions that 
are being considered for PCB disposal? 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: We had requests and 
we are giving D and D technical assistance. 
We are not putting funds at their disposal. 
We believe the company that does develop 
an appropriate method to handle not only 
PCB material but other liquid wastes will 
find a very lucrative market. We hope the 
private sector will develop it on their own. 
We think the potential of success is reason- 
ably large and they should be willing to 
take this gamble. 

I think we are prepared to give them all 
kinds of technical assistance and support 
at the research foundation. 

CALEDONIA DAM 

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
question of the Minister of Natural Re- 
sources. Is the minister aware there is an 
emergency situation at Caledonia, involving 
the old dam which has been slated for re- 
newal for some time because a huge section 
of the dam has settled several feet? There 
is now also a gaping hole in the middle of 
it and the water level has already receded 
two feet below normal. This could have 
a serious efi^ect on recreational use of the 
upper Grand River, and farm water wells 



MAY 31, 1979 



2381 



could be drastically affected. Is the min- 
ister prepared to deal with this situation? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I'm aware of the problem 
at one section. I believe it's a three-sec- 
tion dam and the one section collapsed re- 
cently and is now acting as a weir but is 
not keeping the water up as high as it did. 
I understand that the Grand River Con- 
servation Authority has done some pre- 
liminary engineering and has come up with 
an estimate df ^bout $2 million, I believe, 
for repair. 

Mr. G. I. Miller: About $1.8 million? 

Hon. Mr. Auld: In that neighbourhood. 

Mr. G. I. Miller: Yes, in round figures. 

Hon. Mr. Auld: I am not yet in a position 
to say whether or not that money will be 
available out of our budget for this year. 
In fact, the amount for dams is pretty tight 
for those projects that are presently under- 
way. But I am aware of tlie problem and 
were anxious to see it resolved. 

FALCONBRIDGE HIRING 

Mr. Laughren: I rise, in the absence of 
the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of 
Labour (Mr. Elgie), to ask a question on 
behalf of my colleague the member for 
Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), who was earlier 
ejected for telling the truth. 

In view of the aimouncement by Falcon- 
bridge Nickel Mines that they're going to 
call back 300 employees, will the Treasurer 
of the province of Ontario tell us whether he 
is willing to request of Falconbridge Nickel 
Mines that the employees from National 
Steel Corporation of Canada Limited be 
given first priority when Falconbridge Nickel 
Mines starts hiring that extra 300 employees, 
once the laid-oflE Falconbridge miners, of 
course, have been called back under the 
union contract? Further, will he have the 
Minister of Labour use his people to bring 
the groups together so that an orderly 
hiring process can take place? 

Mr. Swart: Reasonable request. 

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think 
it is a reasonable request. I think any time 
one operation is closing in an area the maxi- 
mum degree of co-operation should exist in 
helping people get relocated. 

I'm sure my colleague, the Minister of 
Labour, would be glad to use his offices to 
facilitate such assistance if possible. One 
can't demand that they be hired but one 
can do a lot to facilitate hiring. 



RULES OF THE HOUSE 

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of 
order: I don't want to inflame either you, 
Mr. Speaker, or other members of the House, 
but I would like you to pay attention and 
bring to your attention, with the greatest 
of respect, rule 19(d)(9), a rule which says: 
"A member shall be called to order by the 
Speaker if he imputes false or unavowed 
motives to another member." 

I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that 
some of the incidents that have occurred, 
both in previous days and today, arose 
because one member made or alleged 
unavowed motives to other members of this 
House. I suggest to you, and I have the 
Oxford English dictionary in front of me, 
that unavowed means "not admitted." I 
draw that to your attention and would ask 
you, with great respect, to strictly enforce 
that rule and we might avoid some of the 
incidents that resulted in the unfortunate 
leaving of my friend and colleague, the 
member for Sudbury East. 

Mr. Breithaupt: In speaking to the par- 
ticular point raised by the member, I'm 
wondering to whom the member is direct- 
ing this comment with respect to the pos- 
sibility of motives? Further, what are the 
motives that are presumably being referred 
to? Perhaps if Mr. Speaker could inquire 
somewhat more of the member for Port 
Arthur we'd all know what he is talking 
about. 

Mr. Foulds: I am not making any allega- 
tions of false or unavowed motives. I was, 
strictly in the abstract, bringing the rule to 
your attention for its enforcement, Mr. 
Speaker. 

[3:30] 

Mr. Sweeney: Unfortunately we're not in 
the abstract. 

Mi. Foulds: You certainly are. 

Mr. Speaker: I am well aware of the rule 
the honourable member has just quoted and 
I try to enforce it rehgiously. I really don't 
know the connection, but I will take a look 
at the record and see what was said. 

Mr. Peterson: On a point of order. 

Mr. Speaker: I'm on my feet. Would you 
please! I will look into the allegation made 
by the member for Port Arthur and if I see 
there is any foundation in it I will report 
back to the House. 

Mr. Peterson: On a point of order. 

Mr. Speaker: I have dealt with it. 



2382 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



REPORTS 

STANDING PUBLIC 
ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE 

Mr. Hall from the standing public ac- 
counts committee presented the following 
interim report and moved its adoption: 

Your committee recommends that the 
Royal Ontario Museum furnish the com- 
mittee with the most current monthly 
financial statements and budget of the 
Royal Ontario Museum for analysis by the 
provincial auditor, such statement analysis 
to be returned to the committee within 
three weeks, preferably two weeks. 

Your committee further recommends that 
the Minister of Culture and Recreation, 
the Deputy Minister of Culture and Recrea- 
tion, together with the chairman of the board 
of the Royal Ontario Museum and the 
director of the Royal Ontario Museum, at- 
tend at the committee deliberations of the 
i matter. 

Mr. Speaker: Shall the report be received 
[and adopted? Carried? Report adopted. 

Does the honourable member have a com- 
1 ment? 

Mr. Hall: I will follow the Speaker's 
wishes. I was given to understand that I 
would have to move adjournment, but I 
would hope that the parties referred to in 
the motion would see fit to provide the 
information and be available to the com- 
mittee, which considers this topic to be 
urgent. In the best interests of all con- 
cerned, we feel as a committee that the 
matter should be dealt with before this 
House adjourns for the summer. 

Mr. Speaker: If that is tfhe will of the 
committee, perhaps the honourable member 
would be wise to move the adjournment of 
the debate rather than have the motion 
carried. 

Some hon. members: It's been carried. 

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute. The member 
for Lincoln brought in a report from a com- 
mittee and moved its adoption. 

Mr. Grande: And it was carried. 

Mr. Speaker: I put the question. I said: 
"Shall the motion carry?" 

Mrs. Campbell: And it was carried. 

Mr. Speaker: I heard no objection. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with re- 
spect, you may not have heard me over the 
conversation of my colleagues, but I did say 
no. 

Interjections. 



Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would point out, 
in any event, the rules require that the per- 
son presenting the motion "shall" move the 
adjournment of the debate. 

Mr. Speaker: No. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: "Shall." 

Mr. Speaker: No; not so. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I believe it says 
"shall." 

Mr. Speaker: No. 

Mr. Nixon: Good try, Larry. 

An hon. member: You'll be Speaker next 
time. 

Mr. Speaker: Will the Clerk read the 
motion? 

Clerk Assistant: The motion? 

Mr. Speaker: Yes. That is the motion be- 
fore the House, whether or not the report 
shall be adopted. 

Mrs. Campbell: It was carried. The will 
of the House is mightier than the minister. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It says "shall"; sec- 
tion 30(c) of the standing orders. 

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable 
minister take his seat? 

"Mr. Hall from the standing public ac- 
counts committee presented an interim re- 
port, which was read as follows, and moved 
its adoption." That is the issue before the 
House. I put it before the House and it was 
carried. 



Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, on a 

point of order. 

Mr. Speaker: The motion was carried. Do 

you want to challenge my ruling? 
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker- 
Mr. Speaker: Do you want to challenge 

my ruling? Do you want to challenge the 

ruling? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do want to chair 

lenge the ruling, Mr. Speaker. 
Mr. Speaker: All right. 
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if I 

might- 
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the 

Speaker's ruling please say "aye." 

All those opposed will please say "nay." 

In my opinion the ayes have it. 

Ruling upheld. 

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports. 

Motions. 

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I would like 

to present a report. 

Mr. Speaker: I asked, "Presenting reports." 

. Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rose before 
and you tinned your back to me. 



MAY 31, 1979 



2383 



Mr, Speaker: The member for St. George. 

STANDING MEMBERS' 
SERVICES COMMITTEE 

Mrs. Campbell from the standing mem- 
bers' services committee presented the fol- 
lowing report and moved its adoption: 

Your committee has the honour to present 
its first report and recommends as follows: 

That standardized procedures be estab- 
lished to ensure that the legislative library 
receive automatically and as soon as possible 
all research and backup documentation from 
commissions of inquiry related to the gov- 
ernment of Ontario. 

Report adopted. 

COMMITTEE REPORT RULE 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On a point of order, 
Mr. Speaker, I wonder, in the rather quick 
sequence of events, if you might, on a point 
of order, give us some guidance? 

Mrs. Campbell: The minister is too late. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We on this side of 
the House, after an unfortunate series of 
events last year, were in a position where 
most members stayed on Thursday after- 
noons in order to make sure that events just 
occurred on that morning or the previous 
day did not cause quick and hurried adop- 
tion of reports out of committees. 

It was my clear understanding, and I 
don't want to be over-argumentative on this— 

Mrs. Campbell: Just arrogant. 
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not fair. 
With respect, this side of the House was 
under the clear understanding that section 
30(c) prevented occurrences such as I be- 
heve, have just occurred. It was intended to 
prevent these occurrences by making abso- 
lutely sure that, without discussion and with- 
out the possibility even of votes being car- 
ried or motions being carried, there was no 
option left open to the chairman of a com- 
mittee presenting a report. We understood 
Sthat after a chairman of a committee pre- 
sented a report, he or she would move the 
adoption and could make a brief statement 
and then, "shall adjourn the debate." 
I We read that as saying you ought not, 
I under the rules, to call for adoption of that 
■ report; ought not to permit the House to 
' vote on that motion; rather the member re- 
porting is obliged to move adjournment. 

In fairness to this side of the House, or 
any member who wishes to vote one way or 
another on that matter, it would seem to me 
they are entitled to rely upon at least our 



interpretation, and that which has been con- 
veyed to us by all three House leaders I 
think, vdth regard to the import of section 
30(c). 

For that reason, on Thursday afternoons 
particularly, members who might have cer- 
tain things to say about it or wish to vote 
one way or another do not stay in the House> 
They go off to some of their committee 
duties. 

In fairness to those members who may 
have wanted to participate in any vote, vocal 
or otherwise, this might be an appropriate 
point at which you, Mr. Speaker, might 
reflect upon section 30(c) for our guidance. 
If we are wrong in saying there is no option, 
then you might indicate that to us. Other- 
wise, in fairness to all those members who 
might otherwise have wanted to be here 
and participate, you ought to give us the 
opportunity to so do. 

I would ask the other House leaders to 
assist in my interpretation of section 30(c). 
They were present when the interpretation 
was negotiated and agreed upon; I would 
ask them if they believe my interpretation 
is correct. I think it couldn't be clearer. 

Mr. NLxon: Mr. Speaker, I can't argue 
with your interpretation of the rules. All I 
can say is that the sequence of events de- 
scribed by the acting House leader for the 
government side is correct. There was some 
difficulty that, on the basis of this rule, was 
put aside. 

But I want to bring to your attention, sir, 
since I hope you will give it further con- 
sideration, that a report such as the one that 
was put before you by the vice-chairman of 
the public accounts committee, is of a nature 
that becomes useless if it is simply put on 
the shelf and left there. So for the good of 
the public business, I would hope your 
review of that rule differentiates between 
the kind of report which is a major recom- 
mendation to this House that does require 
plenty of notice so the House can take part 
in a formal debate; and the other type, 
which although it has substantive matter 
pertaining to it, is the sort of decision the 
House should be able to enter into wdthout 
undue delay. 

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I 
don't pretend to have your wisdom in inter- 
preting the rules, but I would think your 
handling of the first matter was probably 
correct under the first sentence of the rule 
brought to our attention by the acting gov- 
ernment House leader when it says, "may 
move the adoption of the report if it contains 
a substantive motion." 



2384 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



I would suggest the motion contained in 
the report of the vice-chairman of the public 
accounts committee was simply to confirm 
existing powers of that committee to call 
persons, papers and things. That was my 
understanding of the report. It was simply 
seeking that confirmation from the House. 
Therefore, the argument put by the Liberal 
House leader, I think, is a just one in the 
case of that report. 

There's no use waiting for two or three 
weeks to schedule an evening debate on that 
kind of a report put to the House. However, 
other reports that have major applications in 
terms of policy or major implications in 
terms of legislation, I think justly foUow, 
and should justly follow, the rule as inter- 
preted by the government House leader. We 
would certainly support him in that. 

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, from my own 
point of view, when a report from a com- 
mittee comes into the Legislature presumably 
only those members on that committee are 
familiar with the content. The chairman 
moves its adoption and we have no idea 
what it contains. I wasn't aware we would 
have a division, but I was under the im- 
pression that unless there was unanimous 
consent it wouldn't be adopted, it would be 
tabled in eflFect. 

Mrs. Campbell: Forever. 

Mr. Kennedy: It wouldn't necessarily be 
forever at all. It just seems logical to me 
that a committee shouldn't come in here 
with a report and move adoption when the 
majority of the members from all sides aren't 
famihar with the content. I interpret sec- 
tion 30(c) as does the acting House leader. 

Mr. Sterling: I would just like to add that 
as a member of the procedural afiFairs com- 
mittee, which was charged with the respon- 
sibility of looking at the standing orders, the 
interpretation as the acting government 
House leader has placed on this particular 
rule is certainly what I interpreted as the 
intent of that particular committee. The 
problem in determining whether or not a 
report is of a substantive nature or not, 
leaves the chairman who moves that par- 
ticular motion in a pretty precarious position 
if in fact there is a substantive part in that 
report. It was my thought when we were 
discussing this particular rule amendment 
that it would be natural for the chairman to 
move adjournment, and the latter part of the 
rule is intended to make certain the report 
doesn't sit there forever. 

Mr. Hall: I just want to explain to the 
House that I understand the reason for ha:v- 



ing to presenlt an interim report is only to 
provide the proper authority for the provin- 
cial auditor to analyse current monthly finan- 
cial statements and the current budget of the 
Royal Ontario Museum. Up unltil the present 
time, the report we are dealing with was 
written in 1977-78. To advance it to give him 
legal authority to look at current material, we 
felt what we considered to be minor clear- 
ance by the House was necessary. 

[3:45] 

I reiterate that we are acting out of our 
concern for the public interest in the Royal 
Ontario Museiun. In view of the press atten- 
tion that has been placed on this matter, all 
parties represented in the committee this 
morning felt very much that the matter just 
could not be delayed. All we sought was 
proper clearance for the provincial auditor to 
act on the cmrent year's financial statement 
to provide us with analysis and advice. 

Hon. Mr, Grossman: Mr. Speaker, if I 
might respond: What has developed in the 
last few minutes is tihat Ithe member has had 
an opportunity now to explain to a half- 
empty House the substance of his motion. It 
was precisely because of the concern- 
Mr. Foulds: There are more members here 
than we usually have for debates on reports. 
Hon. Mr. Grossman: — (that motions passed 
by committee three or four hoiu-s ago were 
not even known to the vast majority of the 
assembly that the decision was taken by the 
House leaders that a motion should not be 
introduced and voted upon immediately with- 
out the opportunity for all the members of 
the House to have some knowledge of it. 
That was part of the motivation. It could be 
that this side of the House would support it. 
I am not arguing the merits of the motion. 
What I am arguing quite sincerely is that 
the whole purpose of this was that at tihis 
stage in the proceedings the chairman of the 
committee would not have to rise and try to 
explain to the House that this was or was not 
a substanltive motion. The pmpose of this 
procedure was to allow the motions to go on 
the order paper, as can be seen particularly by 
reading subsections (a) and (b). As with every- 
thing else, it was to give members time for 
due consideration of the merits of a motion 
and then to enable it to be brought forward 
by the government House leader at a later 
date. 

Having heard this, I understand the urgency. 
Presiunably the system was set up so that the 
House leaders could respond to thait urgency 
and urge the government House leader to 
bring it on at a short date. On the question 
under subsection (c) as to whether ^is is a 



MAY 31, 1979 



2385 



substantive motion, I might point out that 
that must be read in the context of (a) and 
('b). I don't want to get overly legahstic here, 
but I think this is an important point to clear 
up. Subsections (a) and (b) are written in to 
deal with the non-substantive motion pro- 
cedure, which is that they are not voted on. 
Then subsection (c) is the subsection that's 
put in the rules to deal with those matters 
where there is a substantive motion involved. 

That is the procedure and, I say with re- 
spect, the only procedure that can be fol- 
lowed in the matter of a substantive motion. 
It is presumed in (a) and (b)— and I think it 
is quite clear— that if it's a report not bearing 
substantive matters then it is not moved for 
adoption, it is presented to the House. The 
only other tyi>e we have deal with a sub- 
stantive motion, and thereafter the procedure 
is only as outlined in subsection (c). 

I say to the opposition House leaders, that 
I would hope that however we may decide to 
treat the report emanating out of pubhc ac- 
counts this morning, surely they must agree 
that under no circumstances imder this rule, 
which was negotiated just recently, in section 
30 or anywhere under the nJes, shall sub- 
stantive or non-substantive reports from com- 
mittees be voted upon immediately after pre- 
sentation to the House. 

I say to the opposition House leaders, and 
I say to you very clearly Mr. Speaker, that it's 
my clear understanding thalt under no portion 
of the rules was the motion put by the chair- 
man of the committee for adoption to be 
voted on under the rules. It couldn't be voted 
on under the rules. He had only one option 
at that stage, that is to move the adjourimient 
of the debate. I say to the opposition House 
leaders that I would hope they would agree 
with the spirit of what I'm saying. Even if 
they don't agree with the spirit, I would ask 
them if they can find in the rules anything 
which gives another option to the chairman 
of a committee rising in those circumstances. 

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the contribution 
made by all honourable members in assisting 
me in reaching a decision as to whether or 
not the right course of action was taken on 
the motions by the honourable member for 
Lincoln and the honourable member for St. 
George. In view of the comments made by 
the acting House leader of the governing 
party, the House leader of the Liberal Party 
and— I suppose he is— the deputy House leader 
of the New Democratic Party, find that their 
comments are very persuasive and perhaps 
I was hasity in accepting the motion from the 
member for Lincoln. 

I would agree with the comments made by 
the member for Port Arthur in that, in the 



case of the report presented by the member 
for Lincoln, I would not construe the contents 
of that report as being substantive, because 
they would not have needed any action by 
this House to do what they attempted to 
accomplish by bringing the report in. 

Be that as it may, the comments made by 
everybody who has spoken, including the 
member for Carleton-Grenville, who was a 
member of the procediiral affairs committee, 
were that indeed the intent of this amendted 
standing order was to give the House an 
opportunity to review. 

With the unanimous consent of the House 
I would revert back to the point where the 
member for Lincoln introduced his report and 
asked that the debate be adjourned, if that is 
the wish of the House. 

Mr. Nixon: I appreciate your suggestion, 
Mr. Speaker. I would suggest further, with 
respect, that under the circumstances it might 
be better if we were to consider these reports 
on another day. Rather than ask the honour- 
able member to revert to that situation now, 
when the House has taken an action and 
when actually there was a voice vote taken, 
I would suggest to you, sir, that if perhaps a 
day intervened during which the matter might 
be considered perhaps even further, that 
might be a course of action that would be 
more convenient for the members direcdy 
concerned to follow. 

Mr. Speaker: Since it seems to be the con- 
sensus of all who have spoken that perhaps 
the chair acted unwisely, now is the time to 
correct it, rather than to let any period' of 
time intervene by way of correcting it. 1 
would have thought that everybody who is 
here now would be well aware of the circum- 
stances surrounding the presentation of the 
report. As I recall, the member for Lincoln 
was a bit apprehensive as to whether he 
should move the adjournment of the debate 
or just allow the chair to put the motion. 
Unless somebody has a very good reason why 
we should postpone correcting it, I think we 
should take action right now. 

STANDING PUBLIC ACCOUNTS ' 
COMMITTEE 

Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, it was not a matter 
of apprehension with regard to the adjourn- 
ment of the debate; it was a matter of our 
understanding of the rules. However, there 
was no objection made and the matter was 
adopted by the House. 

I would ask that the assistant House leader,' 
in referring to the spirit and the intent of 
what was put in the rule that is in debate, 
also try to understand the spirit and intent of- 



2386 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



the committee's desire this morning merely to 
permit the provincial auditor to step beyond 
his current terms of reference, being 1977-78, 
and operating under the old Audit Act, which 
did not permit him to be the auditor for the 
Royal Ontario Museum, to enter into this and 
to give us guidance before this House ad- 
journs. I can assure you it is considered to be 
a serious matter, and v^^e are simply trying to 
act in the best spirit and interest of every- 
body who is involved in this matter. 

I will now move the adjournment of the 
debate but, as I said before, I would appre- 
ciate the co-operation of the people involved 
in permitting this committee to do its work 
before the House adjourns for the summer. 

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I understand 
the difference of opinion on this rule, and 
I am not completely sure that you are wrong 
or indeed the government House leader is 
wrong. But it seems to me we still do have 
the option of changing a rule by unanimous 
consent, and- in fact that is what we probably 
have in these circumstances. 

When the House voted, with no objection, 
to adopt that particular report, it seems to 
me that de facto if not de jure, we waived 
this particular rule at this particular time. 

An hon. member: Tliere is not unanimous 
consent. 

Mr. Peterson: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, 
on one other ground: That because time is so 
very much of the essence in this particular 
matter, and I think that has been eloquently 
expressed by my colleague from Lincoln, it 
may be a case, particularly since all of the 
government members on that committee 
voted with this. Where we could solve the 
substantive problem, if not the procedural 
problem, by getting unanimous consent re- 
affirmed, subsequent to our other voice vote 
in favour of passing, to dispense with the rule 
if in fact your judgement prevails and it is the 
rule, so that we can proceed immediately and) 
forthwith on this issue. 

I am not suggesting it is necessarily a case 
for a compromise, but it might be. It might 
be the case where communally, in the inter- 
ests of everyone concerned, we can solve our 
collective problem without violating any of 
the rules of the House. I would like to appeal 
to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the acting gov- 
ernment House leader on those grounds. 

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for 
London Centre is asking me to prevail upon 
the House for unanimous consent to allow 
the honourable member for Lincoln to move 
the adoption without adjourning the debate. 
Do we have such unanimous consent? 



Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, may I 
deal with the substance of What this report 
of the public accounts committee is all 
about? I would take it that the whole object 
of the exercise is to put the public accounts 
committee in a position to deal with certain 
matters next Thursday. Is that what it is all 
about? 

May I suggest to the House that surely 
we can look after that problem before next 
Thursday by way of motions or some other 
mechanisms. There is obviously no resist- 
ance here to the substance of the motion. 
I think in fairness to most of the members 
of the assembly who have not heard what 
happened this morning, let alone read it, 
we should follow a normal procedure. 

A motion can easily be introduced any 
time next week. Indeed, the government 
Ho^lse leader could call for debate on that 
matter next Monday, Tuesday or Thinrsday 
— no, I guess not Thursday; but tomorrow 
morning, Monday or Tuesday. There is 
plenty of time before next Thursday and I 
don't foresee any problem. I think that 
would be a more regular way to follow this 
rather than debating it further through pri- 
vate members' hour this afternoon. 

Mr. Peterson: May I respond to that point, 
Mr. Speaker? 

Mr. Speaker: We could go on indefinitely 
with all of the nuances and everything else. 
The honourable member for Lincoln has 
gracously reconsidered, and he has moved 
the adjournment of the debate, so that is the 
question before the House. If you want to 
speak as to whether or not the debate should 
be adioumed— Do vou want to speak to 
that particular point? 

Mr. Makarchuk: Yes, I do. 

Mr. Speaker: As to whether or not the 
debate should be adjourned? 

Mr. Makarchuk: Yes. 

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for 
Brantford. 

Mr. Makarchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 
It has been stressed quite eloquently here 
by members who were present at the public 
accounts committee that this is a matter of 
urgency. The time element is of some con- 
cern to the committee because it would in- 
volve examining books; it would involve 
getting the staff and so on to go to the books 
and bring the matter back to the committee 
before the House adjourns. 

However, I want to point out that the 
option is open to the government House 
leader, if he is prepared, in agreement with 
the members of his party to accept the desire 
that the provincial auditor proceed with the 



MAY 31, 1979 



2387 



examination of the books, to introduce a 
routine motion exactly as was presented by 
the vice-chairman of the public accounts 
committee. I am sure the House would ac- 
cept it and it would resolve the whole prob- 
lem. If the House leader is prepared to do 
that I think it can be carried through right 
now. 

Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion to adjourn 
the debate carry? 

Motion agreed to. 

•Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I was on my 
feet. 

Mr. Speaker: The vote was carried. 

Mr. Foulds: I was on my feet to be 
recognized. 

[4:00] 

Mr. Speaker: How long do you want to go 
on with this, really? 

Mr. Makarchuk: Until we resolve it. 
Mr. Foulds: The rules of the House, as 
you well know — 

Mr. Speaker: It's your time, go ahead. 

Mr. Foulds: Thank you. I think that if the 
House leader of the government party would 
give a commitment to this House to intro- 
duce either later today or tomorrow the 
motion that he himself suggested he would 
have no difficulty whatsoever with the mem- 
bers on this side of the House. I would like 
that clear commitment from him; not Mon- 
day or Tuesday, but today or tomorrow, be- 
cause I think the members of the committee 
have, as my colleague from Brantford indi- 
cated, spoken eloquently about the need for 
urgency. 

Mr. Peterson: There are two points I want 
to respond to. One, the deputy House leader 
brings up the point, Mr. Speaker, that there 
are certain members who may want to speak 
on this particular matter but weren't ap- 
prised of it. It seems to me that's one of the 
risks of being a member of this Legislature. 
Frequently things happen that everyone 
isn't apprised to and one is seized never- 
theless of the results of that particular trans- 
action on the floor of this House. 

Two, I'm very attracted to the suggestion 
of my colleagues from the New Democratic 
Party. I am sure that substantively the de- 
puty House leader would have no objection 
from his party on this particular motion. If 
he could, in his wisdom, give us a commit- 
ment that it is to be brought up tomorrow 
so that we could proceed post haste I am 
sure that we can all retire on this principle 
and keep our virginity intact with respect to 
the principles of this House. If we could 



have that assurance from the deputy House 
leader I would be delighted and we will pro- 
ceed perfunctorily. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want to say that 
without consulting with my colleagues, as 
each of you has had an opportunity to do, 
then I wouldn't give that commitment. I do 
want to make it clear, though, that I am 
aware that the members of my party voted 
in favour of the motion this morning. I don't 
think it is fair to anyone in this assembly to 
try to blow this procedural matter into some- 
thing it isn't. 

There are the alternatives which I can 
assure members will be taken up. I will dis- 
cuss the matter with my colleagues and with 
the House leaders tomorrow morning and 
we will have plenty of opportunity between 
now and next Thursday. 

I might add that obviously the public ac- 
counts committee can choose to sit at as 
much length as possible to deal with this 
matter next Thursday, Friday or at other 
times in the event there is any difficulty 
between now and next Thursday. 

I can't see the point of arguing this 
matter at this time when there is no problem. 
There is no problem, I want to say that. I 
have to, in fairness to my colleague the min- 
ister involved, who is not here and not even 
aware of what occurred this morning, give 
him the opportunity to at least- 
Mr. Foulds: If he isn't, he should be. 
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member may 
say he should be, but he is not here and 
not even aware of the situation. I think he 
ought to have the benefit of at least con- 
sulting with the government House leader 
before we comment on it at all. That's all that 
we're asking. 

I might say to the member for London 
Centre, with regard to his remarks, it is not 
any longer one of the risks of this House 
that matters may come up and blind-side 
one and be dealt with in the manner that 
we're talking about. The whole point of all 
the exercise that we've been through in the 
last little while in the procedural affairs com- 
mittee and as the House leaders is to stop 
surprises. The Minister of Culture and 
Recreation doesn't even know what's hap- 
pening this afternoon. The whole point of 
the exercise was to avoid surprises and I 
think that's the way we ought to handle it. 
Mr. Speaker: The motion before the 
House, moved by the member for Lincoln, 
is for the adjournment of the debate. 
Mr. Makarchuk: On a point of order- 
Mr. Speaker: This is on the motion, I 
hope. 



2388 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Mr. Makarchuk: No, I'm speaking on a 
point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the 
point of order that I wish to stress here and 
bring to the attention of the deputy House 
leader is that it is not a matter for the public 
accounts committee to deal with the matter 
next Thursday; it is a matter of giving the 
auditor of this province, and nobody else, 
the authority to examine the books of the 
Royal Ontario Museum and report back in 
time before the House adjourns. That's all. 
It's so he can start working tomorrow 
morning. It does not require any opinion 
from the minister or anyone else. It's having 
the eflFect of blocking the ejffectiveness of 
this House. 

Interjections. 

On motion by Mr. Hall, the debate was 
adjourned. 

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The next ques- 
tion to be decided is a report presented on 
behalf of the members' services committee 
by the member for St. George. 

STANDING MEMBERS' 
SERVICES COMMITTEE 

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, in view of 
the decision in the earlier matter I believe 
I am perfectly prepared at some stage to 
move the adjourrmient of the debate, but it 
is my understanding that at least I have the 
opportunity to speak briefly to the report. 

Mr. Speaker, it came to our attention in 
the committee that it has been the custom 
of the library— I wonder if I could have 
some attention. It has been the practice of 
the library to seek from a commission, a 
commissioner or a chairman of a commis- 
sion, not only the report of the commission 
but the backup material upon which the 
report is based, including transcripts. Some 
commissioners comply with the request, some 
do not. Thus the motion before the Speaker 
was simply to establish some procedure to 
regularize this matter, not for my benefit 
but for the benefit of the library and those 
whom the library will serve. 

I really wouldn't have regarded that as a 
particularly substantive motion, but I would 
just like to make this observation. It seems 
to me that the work of this House is be- 
coming more and more irrelevant, and it's 
partly because we seem to get into wrangles 
and it seems to be very difiBcult for com- 
mittees to get their reports debated in this 
House. 

I would hope that what has gone on here 
today would serve the government notice 
that the committees labour over their reports 



in many cases-I'm not suggesting this one 
—and their reports are treated with contempt 
by the government in the ordering of busi- 
ness in this House. Perhaps when they're 
discussing rules they might discuss the pur- 
port of the business of this House. 

On motion by Mrs. Campbell, the debate 
was adjourned. 

MOTION 

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS 

Hon. Mr. Grossman moved that the follow- 
ing substitutions be made: on the standing 
resources development committee, Mr. G. I. 
Miller for Mr. Bolan; on the standing mem- 
bers' services committee, Mr. Worton for Mr. 
Conway; on the select committee on Hydro 
affairs, Mr. Conway for Mr. Kerrio. 

Motion agreed to. 

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS 

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES 
AMENDMENT ACT 

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 

114, An Act to amend Certain Acts Respect- 
ing Regional Municipalities. 

Motion agreed to. 

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT 

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 

115, An Act to amend the Municipal Act. 
Motion agreed to. 

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this bill is 
another act to amend the Municipal Act. It's 
been introduced separately from the bill I 
introduced the other day, and will proceed 
through the House separately, because it 
covers one particular topic which is of para- 
mount importance at the present time to 
particularly one municipality, the city of 
Hamilton. For that reason I hope that this 
amending bill may be passed^ into law as 
quickly as possible. 

The act is designed to provide suflScient 
flexibility to all municipalities that may have 
implemented a section 86 reassessment. It 
wfll permit them to phase in over a period of 
up to five years the effects of the reassessment 
according to various classes of property. 

DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY OF MUSKOKA 
AMENDMENT ACT 

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 
16, An Act to amend the District Municipality 
of Muskoka Act. 

Motion agreed to. 



MAY 31, 1979 



2389 



Hon. Mr. Wells: This bill proposes to ex- 
tend to the district municipality of Muskoka 
certain powers given to local municipalities 
and counties in the Municipal Amendment 
Act, 1978 (No. 3). In addition, the 'bill will 
increase the maximum rate of interest the 
district may charge the area municipalities for 
failure to pay its levy from one per cent to 
one and a quarter per cent per month. 

The bill also removes the requirement that 
the district obtain Ontario Municipal Board 
approval of bylaws prohibiting or regulating 
access to controlled-access district roads. 
This will make the Muskoka act consistent 
with all other regional acts in this regard. 

COUNTY OF OXFORD AMENDMENT 
ACT 

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 
117, An Act to amend the County of Oxford 
Act, 1974. 

Motion agreed to. 

Hon. Mr. Wells: As the other regional acts 
have done, this bill also extends to the restruc- 
tured county of Oxford certain powers given 
to local municipalities and counties in the 
Municipal Amendment Act, 1978 (No. 3). It 
also increases the maximimi rate of interest 
the county may charge an area municipality 
for failure to pay its levy from one per cent 
to one and one-quarter per cent per month. 

In addition, the bill will make it clear that 
the quorum for the council on oflRcial plan 
matters is the same as for all other county 
responsibilities. 

Finally, at the request of the county, pro- 
vision has been included in the bill to allow 
area mimlcipalities in Oxford to acquire in- 
dustrial lands, subject to the approval of the 
county council. 

ROYAL ONTARIO MUSEUM 
AMENDMENT ACT 

Mr. Grande moved first reading of Bill 118, 
An Act to amend the Royal Ontario Museum 
Act. 

Motion agreed to. 

Mr. Grande: The piupose of the bill is to 
reform the structure of the board of trustees 
for the Royal Ontario Museum. The board 
v/ill continue to consist of 21 trustees, but the 
bill provides that eight of the trustees will 
be appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in 
Council, eight will be elected by members of 
the museum, and two will be eledted by 
members of the museum's professional staff. 

The bill also increases the number of 
trustees required to constitute a quorum and 



provides the meeting of the board shall be 
open to the public. I hope that the— 

Mr. Speaker: Order. All that is permitted 
on first reading is a very brief explanation 
of the purpose and the intent of the bill. 

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON 
iNOTICE PAPER 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Before the orders of 
the day, I wish to table the answers to ques- 
tions 113, 186, 291; and an interim answer 
to question 192 standing on the Notice Paper. 
(See appendix, page 2407.) 

[4:15] 

ORDERS OF THE DAY 

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBUC BUSINESS 
WASTE DISPOSAL 

Mr. Kerr moved resolution 18: 

That in the opinion of this House the 
government of Ontario should consider taking 
immediate steps to reduce the amounft of 
waste being disposed of in sanitary landfill 
dump sites; and furthermore, the government 
of Ontario should increase its assistance to 
municipalities and local government authori- 
ties in order to encourage the development 
and institution of alternative methods of waste 
disposal, maximizing the opportunities for 
reclamaition, recycling and development of 
energy from waste. 

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member has 
up to 20 minutes. 

Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I was going to sug- 
gest that I use 15 minutes now and five 
minutes later, but in view of the late hour of 
the dlay I will continue and if I just take 15 
minultes it means somebody else has more 
time. 

This resolution deals with something that 
is of continuing concern to me, as it was 
when I was Minister of the Environment. 
There has been a great deal of research and 
study on this matter, and as a result private 
industry and government ihave been moving 
into the field of resource recovery with vary- 
ing degrees of success. Certainly the govern- 
ment of Ontario has been in the forefront, not 
only with its own experimental plant in 
North York but also by helping research and 
pildt projects in the private sector and with 
programs to assist local governments to estab- 
lish facilities that will reduce reliance on 
landfill sites. 

However, the program has to be speeded 
up. It has to have a greater allocation of 
public funds and there has to be greater 



2390 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



incentive in the whole area of resource re- 
covery. 

I would also like to mention at this time 
that in pnresenting this resolution I am not 
necessarily taking a stand as far as any exist- 
ing application before the Ontario Municipal 
Board or the Environmental Assessment 
Board is concerned. The resolution refers to 
the immediate future and long-term policy 
as to waste disposal, and by inference could 
include both industrial liquid waste and solid 
waste. 

The first part of the resolution says: ". . . 
the government of Ontario should consider 
taking immediate steps to reduce the amount 
of waste being disposed of in sanitary landfill 
dump sites . . ." Most of the reasons for this 
are obvious. I am told sthat in searching for 
litable sites engineers and consultants usual- 
ly recommend prime agricultural land be- 
cause of the topography and because such 
land minimizes leaching and possible con- 
tamination of water supplies. Prime agricul- 
tural land is not only valuable but it also 
attradts some development and rural clusters 
on its fringes, as well as a certain type of 
environment which can be disrupted by in- 
creased traflSc noise. A certain amount of 
nuisance is bound to result from the establish- 
ment of the sanitary landfill site, regardless 
of how well the site is oi>erated. 

Recently we have seen the proliferation of 
various citizens* groups composed of people 
who live at or near a proposed site going 
to great lengths to oppose it, resulting in 
lengthy and costly hearings which could in- 
volve the OMB, the Environmental Assess- 
ment Board, local ojBBcial plans and even the 
Ontario Land Compensation Board. In other 
words, the time and cosit involved in estab- 
lishing landfill sites, certainly in the future, 
will become comparable to other means of 
disposal, and therefore the great argument 
that resource recovery or some other method 
is ju^t too expensive will lose its effect. 

Another reason, in my opinion, is that the 
whole idea of burying garbage, or wasting 
waste, in light of its potential beneficial use 
goes against the grain. As members know, 
domestic waste can be used to generaite 
steam, gas and solid fuel. Much of the waste 
can be recycled and reused, either in its origi- 
nal form or as a resource. It can create 
employment and estabhsh a whole new 
industry. 

What can be done to reduce the genera- 
tion of waste, particularly domestic waste? 

First of all, there have to be changes in 
our attitudes and habits. We live in a basi- 
cally wasteful society in North America. Do- 



mestic waste, for the most part, is created at 
home. There should be separation in the 
kitchen. We should be separating news- 
papers, glass containers and cans. We should 
be composting and we should be taking 
many waste products to recycling plants or 
feeding pick-ups at the curb. However, we 
have been talking about this for a long time 
and we have not been very successful. We 
have had studies and pilot projects, but there 
is no real incentive for people to pick out 
cans, take off labels, remove ends and crush 
them; or to clean empty bottles; all for 
reuse. It's a matter of attitude and con- 
science, but most people just don't seem to 
be interested. Take it from me, Mr. Speaker, 
as a loser in the great garbage gamble that 
I had with one Tony Barrett of Pollution 
Probe, I know. It cost me — and it cost me 
plenty — mainly because my colleagues did 
not believe in composting to the degree that 
I hoped they would. But I have forgiven 
them. 

Mr. Gaunt: They are still not big on com- 
posting. 

Mr. Kerr: I do not like to say it, but the 
leaders of the oppositions at that time also 
each cost me about $40. 

One incentive might be for those munici- 
palities that have two garbage pickups a 
week, for example, to have just one pickup 
a week. Possibly there should be a limit to 
the amount of garbage per household and 
more returnable containers with a deposit. 
We might even consider a tax on cans. In 
any event, there has to be an incentive or 
a penalty to make it work. 

The market value of waste products fluc- 
tuates and demand changes. The market is 
really unsure and not too dependable. I think 
it fair to say that most people are uncon- 
cerned as to what happens after pickup at 
the curb, except for those affected by landfill 
sites close to them. Therefore, garbage is not 
a great issue or a high priority with munici- 
pal politicians or local officials and new 
methods of disposal are difficult to establish. 

Mr. Lawlor: Did that scheme in your 
riding work? 

Mr. Kerr: No, it was a failure — and I 
tried. 

Mr. Lawlor: Go for biomass. 

Mr. Kerr: We require various steps and 
procedures for approval of landfill sites. Our 
policies and our legislation and our regula- 
tions regarding the creation of new sites 
have made it difficult for municipalities to 
make long-term plans for disposal by way of 
sanitary landfill sites — and rightly so. There- 
fore, it is up to us at the provincial level to 



MAY 31, 1979 



2391 



help create and promote alternative methods 
of disposal. 

I disagree with the Robarts report, which 
implies that the province should assume full 
responsibility for solid waste disposal. We 
should, however, be involved in research, ex- 
perimental plants, financial assistance and 
general programming and direction. 

Since about 1965 the Ministry of the En- 
vironment has had a program whereby the 
government will assist municipalities in the 
building of transfer stations and front-end 
processing plants. Basically, the province 
pays 100 per cent of the capital cost of the 
plant and charges the municipality 50 per 
cent of the cost amortized over a 40-year 
period. 

At the time this was introduced I felt, and 
I think most people in the ministry felt, that 
this was a reasonable arrangement and one 
that would be attractive to local govern- 
ments. However, up until now it has not 
been. Maybe we will have to sweeten the 
pot and stop reallocating funds for other 
things. 

In any event, the main responsibility for 
waste disposal should remain at the regional 
level, where a region or restructured munici- 
pality exists, as well as metropolitan areas, 
larger cities and possibly at the county level 
where no substantial urban centre exists. 
The province may have to become more in- 
volved in unorganized districts, but the prob- 
lems there are not as great as in builtup 
areas. 

We all know that the collection and dis- 
posal of domestic waste has always been a 
local responsibility and by its very nature 
should, for the most part, remain at that 
level, subject to what I have said. It is im- 
portant, therefore, that any efiForts to reduce 
waste must involve municipal governments 
and all of the people living within their 
boundaries. 

In spite of the fact that garbage may not 
be a high-priority issue, municipalities have 
a responsibility to institute ways and means 
of reducing waste. They must be prepared to 
accept the fact that disposal will cost more 
in the futiu-e, regardless of the method used; 
therefore, why not use a method where there 
is some recovery and side benefits as well as 
provincial involvement? 

There are a number of ways of disposing 
of waste other than by landfill. There is direct 
burning, direct burning with size reduction, 
pyrolysis and fuel preparation. 

Direct burning usually involves small-scale 
package incinerators, which are commonly 
referred to as controlled-air incinerators. 



These usually handle less than 100 tons per 
day. 

Swaru in Hamilton is a good example of 
direct burning with size reduction. 

Pyrolysis systems are largely in the devel- 
opment stage, although the Andco-Torrax 
system has been accepted commercially in 
four installations in Europe and Union Car- 
bide are involved in this type of system. 

Various designs have been developed' to 
derive gaseous and liquid fuels from muni- 
cipal refuse. The fuel preparation method in- 
cludes two types, loosely termed dry and wet. 
The dry process uses shredding, with size 
reduction of raw refuse usually followed by 
magnetic removal of ferrous metals and some 
form of air classification to separate the par- 
ticles into light and heavy fractions. The light 
refraction has come to be known as refuse 
derived fuel or RDF, and the fuel can be 
used in existing coal-fired boilers as a supple- 
mental fuel in the cement kiln or as a com- 
plete or partial supply for new boilers de- 
signed for burning multiple fuels. 

The "watts from waste" project, if that 
ever gets off the ground, is a demonstration 
project using RDF as a supplemental fuel in 
an existing boiler. 

The recent announcement by the Ministry 
of Energy of the Toronto central heating 
plant using waste as fuel is an excellent idea, 
a good example of energy from waste. The 
energy recovered in that plant, for example, 
would be equivalent to 750,000 barrels of oil 
in one year, rather an important point these 
days. 

There is no question that many of the 
alternate methods will cost more than landfill, 
but time is running out otd the diflFerence. The 
present state of technology makes it practical 
that we should be building more of these 
plants, and again we need municipal co- 
operation as well as to take a look at the 
extent of provincial financial involvement. 

It has been suggested that the program 
should not only be speeded up bvit should be 
in three stages. The first stage will be the 
gradual replacement of disposal sites by 
transfer stations so that disposal operations 
in a particular area are concentrated in the 
few large sophisticated facilities. At those 
plants the proportion of readily separable and 
marketable materials, such as corrugated 
paper, bundled newsprint and ferrous metals 
will be removed for sale and the remainder 
shredded. 

At the second stage, the provision of 
transfer stations and transportation networks 
should be completed throughout the province, 
which will enable the remainder of the front- 
end plants needed' to be constructed. During 



2392 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



this stage, also, suflBcient progress should be 
made in process technology andl market devel- 
opment to enable work to begin on the instal- 
lation of proven back-end recovery processes. 
With the third stage, it will be possible to 
complete the program by installation of com- 
plete resource recovery processes serving 90 
per cent of the population of the province 
and greatly reducing the need for a landfill 
of municipal waste. 

I hesitate to set a date, but surely 1990 is 
not too early. The provision of front-end 
plants alone does not pretend to be a com- 
plete solution to municipal waste manage- 
ment problems; however, it is a necessary 
first step and a very substantial step towards 
the complete solution which is the goal of a 
comprehensive provincial program. 

A proportion of the waste will be reclaimed 
for reuse immediately, and this, along with 
the processing of the remainder, will reduce 
landfill requirements, the cost of transporta- 
tion and landfill, and very substantially reduce 
disposal problems even during the compara- 
tively sh<M:t time until furdier processing 
equipment for greater resource recovery can 
be introdliced. 

The technology is advanced enough to 
start building more plants. All we need now 
is desire and commitment. 

Mr. Gaunt: I'm very pleased to participate 
in this particular debate. I certainly support 
this resolution; it's something that I and my 
party, indeed the opposition, have been talk- 
ing about for a number of years. No one 
could argue with any item in the resolution 
and I was very interested to listen to the 
comments of my friend the member for 
Burlington-South. I sense that he has a 
greater commitment to recycling and recla- 
mation now, in his reincarnation as a private 
member, than he had when he was a min- 
ister. 

Mr. Kerr: I always did have. 
[4:30] 

Mr. Gaunt: All right, I accept that and I 
can therefore only assume that my friend 
had difficulty in getting his ideas accepted 
by his cabinet colleagues when he was Min- 
ister of the Environment a couple of years 
ago. 

Mr. Lawlor: A good assumption. 

Mr. Gaunt: In any event, I welcome the 
resolution. I think it's a good focus for a 
debate of this type. We have had it during 
consideration of the estimates of the Min- 
istry of the Environment year after year and 
I think it's well to bring it into this forum 
too. 



There's certainly a need to reduce the 
amount of waste being disposed of in sani- 
tary landfill dump sites. There's certainly a 
need to increase the assistance to municipali- 
ties, and there's a need to encourage develop- 
ment and to maximize opportunities for rec- 
lamation and recycling. 

There's no doubt in my mind, Mr. 
Speaker, that the existing provincial finan- 
cing program for resource recovery projects 
is inadequate. Although the program provides 
the capital cost of construction— 50 per cent 
is a grant and 50 per cent is a loan recover- 
able over 40 years— it has been really un- 
successful in drawing municipalities into this 
particular field. Municipalities are reluctant 
to proceed because the initial capital expen- 
diture for these kinds of facilities is tremen- 
dously high. 

The other ingredient is the fact that po- 
tential revenues will not justify the expendi- 
tures; and potential revenues are difficult to 
guarantee, given equipment and market un- 
certainties and so on for the recovered prod- 
ucts. I want to touch on that a little later 
because I did make some suggestions back 
on November 28, 1977 during the considera- 
tion of the estimates as to how we might try 
and at least partially overcome that problem. 

The Metropolitan Toronto area waste man- 
agement study of 1976 concluded that the 
current financial incentive programs are too 
inflexible as they apply to municipal and 
private waste management facilities, and 
recommended that provincial funding pro- 
grams for solid waste facilities become more 
flexible to permit a broader participation. 

During the 1977 Ministry of the Environ- 
ment estimates, the then minister, Mr. Kerr, 
said: "We will have to sweeten the EK)t"— and 
my friend repeated that quote today— "in 
some areas where there is a genuine problem 
in terms of financing the more modem type 
of disposal that should be used rather than 
landfill." I agree; and I agreed at that time. 
I reaffirm that agreement today. The fact of 
the matter is the pot has not been sweet- 
ened. I suggest that be done immediately, 
otherwise I don't think we are going to draw 
municipalities into these kinds of programs. 
Last September a proposal to build a 
recychng plant to handle all of Peter- 
borough's garbage was rejected because it 
was felt until markets for a recoverable 
product prove more stable, and unless further 
support is forthcoming from other levels of 
government, the proposal is uneconomical. 
Marketing problems for recovered materials 
must be solved as a top priority. 



MAY 31, 1979 



2393 



Back in 1977, during the estimates, I 
touched upon the benefits which could 
accrue from a provincial recycling market- 
ing board system to co-ordinate the supply 
of reclaimed material and to seek custooners. 
I suggested at the time that it could also 
promote and accelerate the program of build- 
ing reclamation and recycling plants. I still 
feel that to be the case, and it's something 
worth investigating and implementing. 

In the United States more than 20 cities 
in metropolitan areas have resource recovery 
plants now in operation, with another 10 
plants in various stages of construction and 
35 more in the planning stage. I had in- 
tended to review some of these, but ob- 
viously, I am not going to have time to do so. 
The new hydro pulper plant in Hempstead, 
New York, is a good example of how secur- 
ing markets for the sale of power and sal- 
vaged materials has ensured the plant's 
future viability. The plant, which is North 
America's largest waste conversion plant, 
turns 2,000 tons of garbage a day into 250 
million kilowatts of electricity a year, as well 
as yielding about 40,000 tons of ferrous 
scrap, 5,000 tons of aluminum scrap, and 
23,000 tons of glass scrap a year, which the 
community can sell. 

Contracts to sell half the plant's aluminum 
to Reynolds Metal and Aluminum Company 
of America, all of the glass to Glass Con- 
tainer Corporation and a 17%-year contract 
with the Long Island Lighting Company to 
buy the plant's steam output, to be fed into 
their electricity generators, mean that the 
Hempstead community will get $4 a ton as 
its share of proceeds from the sale of these 
products. 

Hempstead Sanitation Commissioner Wil- 
liam Landman estimates that their net dis- 
posal costs, which had been running as high 
as $18 to $19 a ton, will drop to about $11 
a ton, a saving of more than $5 million a 
year. 

An interesting point in the construction of 
the Hempstead facility is that the need for 
a waste conversion plant became urgent 
when the town had run out of landfill areas. 
The passage of the US Resource Conserva- 
tion and Recovery Act in 1976, requiring an 
end to "environmentally imsound" disposal 
of solid waste, led to the construction of the 
facility at a cost of $73 million — these plants 
do not come cheaply, as the member pointed 
out — ^which will be operated by Black Claw- 
son Company, a subsidiary of Parsons and 
Whittemore, a New York engineering firm 
which is planning the construction of another 
mammoth facility in Dade county, near 
Miami, to go into service in 1980, converting 



18,000 tons of garbage a day into 500 mil- 
lion kilowatts of electricity a year, twice the 
size of the Hempstead plant. 

I hesitate to encourage the ministry here 
to get into a mammoth program. It would 
be much better to go with a smaller pilot 
project type of operation, work out the bugs, 
and then move on to the next stage, rather 
than to get into tremendous cost and try to 
work out the bugs as we go along. 

Let's talk for a moment about "watts from 
waste," which my friend from Burlington 
South mentioned. After years of a lot of 
publicity, and even more delay, it seems that 
this particular project is to be dropped — or 
at least re-examined, as it is put in a March 
1979 Ministry of Energy press release. All of 
this, I understand, is due to the cost escala- 
tions and the technological problems that 
have been exi>erienced. 

The cost of the plant has escalated con- 
siderably over the past number of years 
while the wrinkles and the bugs have been 
worked out and while the negotiations went 
on between Metro and the Ministry of the 
Environment and Ontario Hydro. It started 
oflF at something like $11 million, and now 
I believe the total is up around $46 million, 
of which Metro would have to pay about $30 
million. The chairman of the works commit- 
tee has made it clear that, under the severe 
financial restraints on Metro's capital funds, 
the municipality cannot absorb the increase 
of almost $10 million which would be neces- 
sary to have the project proceed under the 
present cost-sharing formula. So that par- 
ticular project is very much up in the air. 
It is to be hoped that it does go forward, 
but it seems at this point in time to be in 
some doubt. 

There are a variety of processes available 
which are operating in many countries of the 
world. In October 1977 — 

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable 
member's time has now expired. 

Mr. Gaunt: Thank you very much, Mr. 
Speaker. I am sure the member knows of a 
number of these plants around the world; I 
was going to mention them and how they 
operate, but I am siure my friend is aware of 
them. 

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, when I read 
the honourable member's resolution, I won- 
dered whether perhaps he had been struck 
on the road to Damascus with a sudden 
revelation, because we will recall that he 
had the honour of being our first Minister 
of the Environment in 1971 and served in 
that portfoHo again for a period from Octo- 
ber 1975 to January 1978. He could have 



2394 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



put these policies which he advocates into 
effect during those two terms of oflBce. 

In fact, if he had put them into effect, we 
might not be faced with the hearings now 
going on regarding the proposed landfill site 
at Glanbrook, intended to serve the Hamilton 
region. These hearings are being very hotly 
contested. The site involves the use of agri- 
cultural land which is needed for agricultural 
purposes. There is considerable controversy 
surrounding this and considerable concern by 
the farmers located nearby as to whether or 
not leachates from the landfill might interfere 
with their farming operations. If the minister 
had been able to put in the kind of resource 
recovery and waste reduction programs he 
talked about, we might not have that applica- 
tion being heard at the present time. 

Presumably the minister did not implement 
his policies when he had the portfolio because 
he could not persuade his colleagues in the 
cabinet to take such action. I would like to 
ask, what makes him think the cabinet is any 
more ready to take action now? If the govern- 
ment members do vote for this motherhood 
resolution, will we get any more action than 
we have in the past, because there is nothing 
to prevent them from acting right now. I sug- 
gest that if the member really wants action 
in this field, he should have the courage to 
cross the floor of the House and join the NDP 
which has been advocating these policies for 
many years. 

Mr. Gaunt: He would feel more at home 
with the Liberals. 

Ms. Bryden: It would require courage to 
cross the floor. 

Mr. Sterling: Where were you when the 
pop can tax came up? 

Ms. Bryden: The honourable member has 
demonstrated that he did not lack courage 
when he swam in polluted Hamilton Bay. 

Mr. Kerr: It isn't polluted. 

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, if one wants to 
be technical, one could argue that this resolu- 
tion is out of order because it advocates the 
spending of money. That, of course, presumes 
the words "assistance to local government 
authorities" mean something more than good 
advice. Perhaps this ambiguity is what the 
government will use to explain any inaction 
if government members do support the 
resolution. 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: The honourable member 
cannot use all her time without being 
constructive. 

Mr. Kerr: The honourable member better 
be constructive in the last three minutes. 

Ms. Bryden: The resolution has two parts: 
first, that the government take steps to reduce 



the amount of waste going into landfill; sec- 
ond, that the government increase its assis- 
tance to local governments to find alternative 
methods of waste disposal. 

Mr. Kerr: Does the honourable member 
separate the waste in her kitchen? 

Ms. Bryden: Yes, I do. I separate my waste 
in the kitchen and take it to the recycling 
plants in Toronto. But I do not think there 
is any increase in the amount of money being 
given to that Toronto program to set up 
depots to receive that waste, which is some- 
thing the government should be doing. 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: What about the polluter 
pays principle? 

Ms. Bryden: I notice that in his motion the 
member is still passing the buck to the mu- 
nicipalities to take action. Yet this govern- 
ment keeps cutting back the resources of 
municipalities by refusing to give them a 
formula for a fair sharing of revenues. It 
seems to me that to pass the buck to the 
municipalities means further inaction, even if 
the pot is sweetened, as the member is 
proposing. 

The government must assume responsibility 
for this growing problem. 

Hon. Mr. Parrott: What about the polluter 
pays principle? 

Ms. Bryden: I am coming to that. 

The problem is becoming very acute, both 
for solid waste and for liquid indtistrial waste, 
as was pointed out by the resources develop- 
ment committee last fall. We are at a crisis 
stage, with landfill sites rapid V being filled up 
and no place for liquid industrial wastes to 
go, particularly hazardous wastes. 

[4:45] 

I find little encouragement in the gov- 
ernment's actions on the question of reduc- 
ing the amount of waste going into landfill. 
For example, the Minister of Consumer and 
Commercial Relations, who is in charge of 
the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, has 
backed away from the recommendation of 
the government's own Waste Management 
Advisory Board, that liquor bottles be col- 
lected for recycling. Nor is there any place 
to collect soft-drink cans for recycling, even 
though the minister's policy on soft-drink 
containers is to allow up to 25 per cent to 
be sold in nonreturnable containers. Either 
nonreturnables should be banned completely 
or, if any are permitted in certain applica- 
tions, they must be got back into the re- 
cycling stream and not allowed to litter our 
highways and our beaches. This applies to 
all knds of cans and bottles, not just soft- 
drink containers. 



MAY 31, 1979 



2395 



Reduction of waste also involves more 
public education. But what do we find in 
the Ministry of the Environment's estimates 
for this year? The amount for public educa- 
tion is down by $79,000. What is the min- 
ister doing to encourage more householders 
to use compost heaps for their kitchen gar- 
bage? I myself operate a compost heap and 
find that it produces very valuable soil for 
the garden. But what sort of grants is the 
minister giving to organizations promoting 
this sort of activity, such as the Is Five 
Foundation, a pioneering recycling group, 
or the Recycling Foundation of Ontario, 
which asked for a grant last year but has 
not, I believe, received one. How many new 
recycling depots have been established 
across the province in the past year? Those 
are the sorts of things we are looking at to 
see whether the government really is inter- 
ested in reducing solid waste. 

An even bigger step could be taken in 
reducing waste if the government would 
take on the packaging industry. Some states 
in the United States impose a tax on the 
creators of waste in proportion to their sales 
and to the amount of solid waste they gen- 
erate and the cost of disposing of that waste. 
That could create a powerful incentive for 
manufacturers and distributors to cut down 
wasteful packaging, but the member does 
not appear to have considered that— at least 
ii is not in his resolution— and the govern- 
ment has not responded to suggestions I 
have made in the past for such a tax. 

We all recognize that recycling plants are 
the principal answer for the residual solid 
wastes which cannot be eliminated by re- 
design of processes, by elimination of un- 
necessary packaging and by reuse of ma- 
terials. But after eight years with a Ministry 
of the Environment we are only at the pilot 
plant stage for a solid-waste recycling plant. 
We are still considering only the feasibility of 
a "watts from waste" program for a hydro 
generating station. And the previous formula 
—which was awkward— to encourage muni- 
cipalities to get into the field of resource re- 
covery has not worked; the member admits 
that, and it is high time we had a new 
formula. If the members on the other side 
of the House vote for this resolution. I will 
expect an immediate announcement of a new 
formula which may stimulate more "watts 
from waste" and resource recovery plants. 

I also hope we will see much more action 
on the disposal of liquid industrial wastes, 
which is a problem that has still not been 
answered. The committee last fall produced 
27 recommendations. Not more than a dozen 



have been partially and tentatively imple- 
mented. There are still many more, indicat- 
ing that until we take some action here we 
are going to have liquid industrial wastes 
going into landfill sites. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable 
member's time has now expired. 

Ms. Bryden: Thank you; I will just con- 
clude with one sentence. 

The government has set a date of Decem- 
ber 31, 1979, for keeping liquid industrial 
wastes out of landfill sites, but it has no 
alternatives. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: On a point of privilege: 
I don't want to cut into the private members* 
t.'me, but I think it is incumbent upon me 
to set the record straight. 

The last speaker made allegations that I 
have backed away from the recovery of 
bottles in the operations of the Liquor Con- 
trol Board of Ontario. She knows better than 
that. That's factually incorrect. It's a matter 
of record that the Minister of the Environ- 
ment, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario 
and I are extremely close to a solution for 
the recovery, recycling, or whatever you 
want to call it, of bottles and other glass 
containers sold in liquor stores. That's a 
matter of record. 

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I am very 
pleased to participate in this debate this 
afternoon. This topic is of extreme impor- 
tance to our future in this province and I 
congratulate the former Minister of the En- 
vironment for bringing it forward. 

I remember one of the first tonics brought 
up in a caucus meeting in which I par- 
ticipated was related to the pop can tax. I 
thought it was a very fine idea, but un- 
fortunately neither the government side nor 
the opposition saw fit to support that par- 
ticular tax. That was one of the first dis- 
couragements I rece'ved as an MPP in this 
Legi<;htuTe. I thought it was time to bite 
the bullet and recognize that we can't con- 
tinue as a consumer society; we must face 
the escalating amounts of waste each of us 
is producing. 

As a government, we must recognize that 
all levels of government, as well as the pri- 
vate sector, have an important role to play 
in this very important matter. 

Second, we must understand how resource 
recoverv programs interrelate with other 
essen^^ial aspects of government activity, such 
as pollution control. 

Third, as a provincial government we must 
continue to ensure careful co-ordination be- 
tween ministries. Not only must we put our 
own resources to work most efficiently, we 



2396 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



must also ensure that all potential avenues 
of resource recovery are explored through 
a clear delineation of the ministers* separate 
responsibilities . 

While the main thrust of my remarks will 
relate to the activities of our Minister of 
Energy, I would Hke to touch briefly on 
some of the responsibilities of the Ministry 
of the Environment because together, these 
ministries are making considerable progress 
towards the eventual recovery and use of un- 
tapped energy and material resources in 
Ontario. 

These may take the form of municipal 
solid waste, farm and forest waste or heat 
byproducts from Ontario Hydro generating 
stations and industrial plant processes. 

Generally, the Ministry of the Environ- 
ment has special responsibility for the man- 
agement of municipal waste and improved 
methods of treatment and disposal which 
include the recovery of both materials and 
energy. The Ministry of the Environment is 
also concerned with reducing the quality of 
waste produced and in developing tech- 
niques for the recovery of materials separated 
at source. 

I could list a catalogue of projects at 
various stages of completion or study at this 
point, but I would rather talk about one 
example of the kind of effective work now 
going on. 

One of the things happening at the ex- 
perimental resource recovery plant in 
Downsview is that paper and plastic film are 
being separated from other waste materials 
because of their high capability for produc- 
ing British thermal units, or energy. The 
Ministry of the Environment is taking that 
material, bundling Jt up and transporting it 
to Woodstock where Canada Cement Lafarge 
Limited has one of its operations. 

At present this company is filling approxi- 
mately 10 per cent of its fuel or energy 
needs using these particular types of waste 
material. It is hoped this will increase to 
approximately 40 or 50 per cent of the firm's 
energy needs and that is hoped to happen 
sometime in the future. 

One of the things we have tried to exem- 
plify in the past — and I think there is room 
for us to improve — is that our government is 
determined to proceed with resource recovery 
as a high priority. But we are also determined 
that we're not going to create new problems 
when we solve the old problems. 

I would like now to move to the role of 
the Ministry of Energy on this topic. This 
ministry is basically concerned with the 
energy from waste projects which relate to 
farm and forest lease and byproduct heat 



from the Ontario Hydro generating stations 
and industrial heat processes. Projects with a 
potential for commercial viabihty will also be 
the Ministry of Energy's responsibility. This 
should enable us to continue to expand the 
activity and prove the commercial viability 
of various projects across the province. 

As an aside, I mentioned earlier that this 
whole resource recovery field involves three 
levels of government. In this regard, during 
the last election campaign the then Minister 
of Energy had alluded to a $58 million 
Canada-Ontario bilateral agreement that was 
to be signed for conservation and renewable 
energy technology development and demon- 
stration. It is hoped this will come forward 
and aid in the thrust of this resolution. 

Returning to the Ministry of Energy, I 
should mention that a set of criteria has been 
carefully created on which to base decisions 
as to whether or not the Ministry of Energy 
should provide assistance to a project. Appro- 
priately enough, the first criterion is security 
of supply. Is there enough waste to make a 
certain project viable? 

Second, there must exist a potential for 
using technology that has already proven 
itself. There must also be a secure market 
for the energy produced. In other words, if 
we produce energy, we must have a place to 
use it. Other criteria examine the viability of 
the operation, or the energy operation as a 
whole. 

As with the case of the environment proj- 
ects, I could list another series the Ministry 
of Energy is involved in but I thought I 
would review a project which might exemr 
plify the process the Ministry of Energy goes 
through. 

North Bay's municipal refuse is a problem 
from several perspectives. First, it occupies 
space. Secondly, contaminated water was 
found to be seeping from the site, and' third, 
it was attracting sea-gulls that posed a safety 
hazard to an adjacent airport. 

Fourth, the refuse was going to waste. 
When the city turned to our government for 
help we understood, on the basis of an early 
examination of options, that an energy 
recovery plant might be viable. We also know 
now that a local company, called Nordfibre, 
was interested in participating actively in a 
resource recovery project. What we have here 
are two levels of govenmient teaming up 
with the private sector to turn garbage, sew- 
age sludge and wood waste from local indus- 
try into energy. That energy would produce 
the majority of steam in the company's plant 
while lowering the company's consmnption 
of natural gas into the bargain. 



I 



MAY 31, 1979 



2397 



In all honesty, it is doubtful that such a 
scheme would ever have fallen together with- 
out the intervention of an interested govern- 
ment. When I say "interested" I mean a 
government that is prepared to spend some 
money to obtain results. In this case, the 
Ministry of Energy contributed 50 per cent 
of the cost of the necessary engineering study; 
the municipality will pay 30 per cent and 
Nordfibre, the company that would eventually 
reap some of the benefits from this project, 
20 per cent. The Ministry of the Environ- 
ment in North Bay will also be involved in 
an active way in dealing with this report. 
[5:00] 

As the example I have related clearly in- 
dicates, neither our government nor any gov- 
ernment can go it alone. Resource recovery 
demands that we act as a team and' that we 
put aside non-productive inquiries into why 
this delay occurred 10 years ago or why that 
company wasn't doing more. Our government 
is now achieving solid results today because 
of a positive spirit of co-operation and a sober 
recognition of certain realities. I don't think 
any of us could kid ourselves about the real 
problem with municipal solid waste. It is not 
going to disappear even with more recycling 
plants and more money being put into these 
programs. We are still going to need landfill 
sites. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable 
member s time has now expired. 

Mr. Sterling: Thank you very much, Mr. 
Speaker. I support this resolution. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Grey 
for up to two minutes. 

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry but 
I wanted 10 minutes on this topic because 
it is one that is very close to me as Owen 
Sound tries to establish a landfill site in my 
riding. The member mentioned that municipal 
co-operation was needed here. I would like 
to say that the present procedure for a munici- 
pality to follow to dispose of its garbage 
makes this very difficult. In fact, I tliink we 
need more co-operation from the government. 

In one hand I have here the environmental 
approval from the environmental approvals 
branch of the ministry for the site in Syden- 
ham township. In the other hand I have a 
letter from the minister saying that we can 
have up to 50 per cent funding for incinera- 
tion if the energy is recovered and used to 
heat a building, a hospital, factory or what- 
ever. On the one hand, I have an approval 
for a landfill site, which Sydenham will not 
accept and which will now go to the Ontario 
Municipal Board. On the other hand I have 
a letter from the minister approving 50 per 



cent of the cost of incineration if the heat 
generated is used. We have a landfill site 
approval for the city wanting landfill and 
we have 50 per cent funding to help Syden- 
ham township which opposes the site for 
good reason. 

We need from the Ministry of Energy 
something that will tip the scales in favour 
of incineration and reclamation. Maybe the 
Ontario waste disposal and reclamation com- 
mittee suggested by the member for Wind- 
sor-Walkerville over these last several years 
in private members' bills would make a good 
start. 

Mr. B. Newman: Since 1972. 
Mr. McKessock: We need a commitment 
that landfill for solid waste would be phased 
out over, say, seven years and help to munic- 
ipalities to find- 
Mr. Deputy Chairman: The honourable 
member's time has now expired. 

Mr. McKessock: I want to congratulate 
the member for bringing this bill forward. 
I hope he continues to push the government 
into action in this regard. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That completes the 
allotted time for that order of business. 

SPEAKER'S RULING 

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Just before the next 
order, I would like to place this ruling on 
record. Last Thursday the member for Scar- 
borough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) asked me 
to consider the provisions of standing order 
64(e)(ii) concerning a recording of the names 
of members objecting to the placing of ques- 
tions in the event that fewer than 20 mem- 
bers should rise. 

I have reviewed the standing order and 
the member's comments. Two distinct actions 
must take place. First, the clerks will deter- 
mine if 20 members are standing and, if 20 
members are standing, their names will then 
be recorded. My interpretation of the stand- 
ing order is that if 20 members are not 
standing, the names of any members who 
object shall not be recorded and the Chair 
will proceed to place the question, as it is 
authorized to do by standing order 64. 

I hope this will be of assistance to the 
honourable member. 

ONTARIO WINE TAX 

Mr. Hall moved resolution 17: 

That, in the opinion of this House, the 
government should follow a policy of mini- 
mum tax and markup on Ontario wines made 
from Ontario-grown grapes to encourage a 



2398 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



stable economy for the grape-growing in- 
dustry in order to preserve unique agricul- 
tural lands. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for 
Lincoln for up to 20 minutes. 

Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for 
me to speak on behalf of an important in- 
dustry in the Niagara Peninsula— agriculture. 
A great lyric poet named Alcaeus once said, 
and I quote: "Wine, dear boy, and truth." 
Today I want to outline some truths con- 
cerning wine and the grape-growing industry 
in Niagara. 

The Niagara Peninsula, our internationally 
renowned tender fruit land, has been frozen 
for agricultural purposes, as it is recognized 
that these lands are unique in Canada and 
can provide continuing benefits to Canada 
in the years ahead. Although these lands 
were frozen, no corresponding policy has 
been adopted to ensure the operation of 
these lands for agricultural purposes will 
prove a paying proposition for the farmers 
or fruit growers concerned. 

The tender fruit industry, consisting of 
producers of peaches, cherries, pears and 
plums, has been fighting to survive for years. 
Imported fruits from countries where the 
sun shines longer, where wage rates and 
employee benefits are low or non-existent, 
are bought by the Canadian consumer, either 
fresh or processed, because they are attrac- 
tively priced and available at different 
seasons. 

Canadian growers have scant protection 
through tariff or non-tariff barriers. With a 
perishable crop, the grower must take what 
he is offered at the fresh market or truck it 
to a cannery. Only certain varieties of various 
fruits are suitable for canning and, at any 
rate, the number of canning plants is dwind- 
ling rapidly because such plants are un- 
profitable or unable to meet modern environ- 
mental standards. 

Cold weather this past winter killed one 
third of certain varieties of peach trees. That 
means five years are needed to replace a 
tree and start to get a yield from it. 

A shortage of Canadians willing to work 
or trained to work in fruit orchards has made 
it increasingly necessary to depend on off- 
shore labour from the Caribbean. 

Faced with these and many more difficul- 
ties, Ontario's prime tender fruit growing 
lands are placing increasing reliance on 
vineyards for their economic survival. The 
majority of fruit farmers not only grow differ- 
ent types and varieties of fruits but also grow 
grapes and it has been a steady expansion 
of !the vineyards, brought about through the 



resourcefulness and far-sightedness of the 
grape growers and wineries, that has pro- 
vided the stability to maintain and sustain our 
tender fruit lands. 

Grapes lend themselves to mechanization 
and a grower can look after many acres. 
Modem weed sprayers and grape harvesters, 
approximately 85 per cent of the crop being 
machine harvested, have solved the cultiva- 
tion and harvesting problems. Pruning is done 
during the winter months, tying in April 
and thinning in June. Much of this work can 
be done by housewives and students with no 
offshore labour being needed, so we can com- 
pete because of mechanization. 

In terms of acreage and crop value, grapes 
are the largest single crop in the peninsula. 
Approximately 80 per cent of Canada's grape 
supply comes from this area, from 25,000 
acres, v^dth only the Okanagan Valley in BC 
providing any other significant commercial 
production to this time. 

Mr. Watson: Have you heard about south- 
western Ontario? 

Mr. Hall: They have about 250 tons a year. 

Wine is the primary end use for the grapes 
grown in the peninsula, with winery pur- 
chases accounting for roughly two thirds of 
the annual crop. Thus, ensuring a healthy 
and growing market for Ontario wine is 
essential to the land-use policy to which the 
present government says it is firmly com- 
mitted. 

The Wine Council of Ontario states thalt 
Ontario wineries and grape growers have 
invested $185 million in an industry employ- 
ing 18,395 Ontario residents. Its brief says 
Ontario wineries and growers purchased over 
$38 million annually in goods and services, 
including $14 million in glass and cartons. 
Annual salaries and wages for fu^l-time and 
part-time employees are more than $26 mil- 
lion. Property taxes from wineries and vine- 
yards are $4 million annuaPy. Income for 
grape growers is $13 million, with more than 
half attributed to wine production from 
grapes. 

These items add up to $81 million annually. 
Purchases, wages, et cetera for grape juices 
and jellies would add importantly to this 
total. In Ontario a grower gets about $265 
from a ton of grapes, on average. After add- 
ing taxes paid to governments, excluding cor- 
porate income taxes and property taxes, that 
ton of grapes is calculated to deliver $1,439 
in taxes, on average. 

The competition for the Ontario market is 
tough. Under current policies of the Liquor 
Control Board of Ontario, foreign produced 
wines enjoy almost double the listing expo- 



MAY 31, 1979 



2399 



sure of Ontario-produced wines. In 1960, the 
LCBO listed 162 Canadian wines and 161 
foreign wines. In 1978, Ontario wine listings 
totalled 400 and foreign wine listings in 
excess of 700. 

During ihe past years, the growth of for- 
eign wines has exceeded the growth of On- 
tario wines by a ratio of nine to one. In 1960, 
Ontario wines sales were 2.8 million gallons. 
In 1978, those sales had grown to 6.6 milhon 
gallons of Ontario wine. On the other hand, 
in 1960, foreign wine purchases were merely 
474,000 gallons. In 1978, foreign wine pur- 
chases had reached 6.3 million gallons— and 
foreign wine consumption is growing at a 
rate of 13 per cent annually. 

I do not suggest a higher mark-up on 
imported wines, as I have no wish to dis- 
courage our citizens and visitors from select- 
ing the wines of their choice. But it should 
be clearly understood that foreign wines 
have access to a world-wide market and a 
well-protected home market. The following 
quotation is from a 1978 issue of Foreign 
Agriculture. The article, written by Mr. 
Richard Schroeter and Omero Sabatini, con- 
cerns the European Economic Community 
common agricultural policy, known as CAP. 
I want to quote directly from this article: 

"Although the specifics of CAP vary from 
one product to another, the program is 
essentially a complex, comprehensive system 
of price supports, minimum import prices, 
stockpiling and export subsidies, all designed 
to keep internal farm prices high by in- 
sulating them from foreign competition. 
Minimum import prices mean a restriction 
on low-priced imports and apply to grain, 
rice, dairy products, beef, w'nes, certain 
fresh fruit, vegetables and tomato concen- 
trates." 

That is how they protect agriculture in 
the European Economic Community. This 
supports the long-held opinion that many of 
the foreign wines purchased by the liquor 
control board are subsidized in one form or 
another by the foreign countries. As a matter 
of fact, the substantial tariffs on imports 
into the European Economic Community 
have been a ma'Or factor in Andres Wines 
establishing English production facilities. 

The Minister of Consumer and Commer- 
cial Relations knows the practice in foreign 
countries and was recently quoted in Quest 
magazine as saying: "All countries protect 
their own wine, and our Ontario wineries 
are very highly protected. The reason for 
this is that they consume Ontario grapes, 
the key to continued agricultural use of the 



Niagara Peninsula, and this is not going to 
dhange. The peninsula wiU not be asphalted." 
As it stands, our grape-growing industry 
of 1,000 growers has proven a great sup- 
porter of government revenues. The 1978 
crop is likely to supply more than $100 
million for provincial and federal purposes, 
according to the Ontario Grape Growers' 
Marketing Board. A reduction in mark-up 
would not necessarily mean a reduction in 
government incomes, because volumes would 
increase. If one does not think price is im- 
portant, consider the fact that, in 1975, 
130,000 tons of California grapes were im- 
ported into Canada for home wine making 
—more than Ontario's whole crop of 80,000 
tons in a good year and on this the LCBO 
got nothing. 
[5:15] 

I am quite certain that the uneven 
quality produced at low cost, including the 
basement vintage made by some of the illus- 
trious members of this Legislature, does not 
measure up to the new wines and cham- 
pagnes being produced by our wineries, 
which have made outstanding strides in the 
past 15 years. Some of them are available 
in the members' dining room and are well 
received. 

Mr. Speaker, it's about time to recognize 
the status and benefits the people of On- 
tario, in particular, receive from our wine 
growing industry. A long-term commitment 
along the lines of this resolution or a further 
reduction in the mark-ups would result in 
immed:ate planning for increased plantings 
of vineyards, commitments for processing, 
ageing and bottling equipment and the 
development of broader marketing policies 
for a product completely grown in Ontario. 

Ontario growers and wineries have been 
going through a period of transition for 
several years as an affluent society increased 
table wine consumption. Vinifera and hybrid 
plantings, new to Canada, have been devel- 
oped over many years, but it takes approxi- 
mately five years to get yield off new plant- 
ing and the matter is complicated by the 
problsm of guessing what the consumer will 
want to purchase. 

Research and development investment by 
wineries has been substantial. Some 45 
varieties of grapes are being grown, includ- 
ing native Labrusca strains, American and 
French hybrids, and European vinifera 
grapes. In 1978, hybrid and vinifera produc- 
tion reached 22,000 tons and more will be 
coming to maturty from new on. These 
produced the lighter, drier table wines. 



2400 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



The grower could benefit from more gen- 
erous tSe drain loans than the province is 
making available. It is also suggested that the 
Foodland Ontario designation could be ap- 
plied to Ontario wines from Ontario grapes 
because of the important contribution they 
make to agriculture, now and in the future. 

If unique land preservation is a goal, we 
will gready help the tender fruit industry by 
supporting the grape and wine industry and 
if future world food shortages develop, we 
would still have our fruit and grape lands 
for basic foodstuffs such as vegetables, corn 
and winter wheat. 

More than 100 years ago, a man named' 
Ernest Dowson said: "They are not long, the 
days of wine and roses. Out of the misty 
dream our path emerges for a while, then 
closes within a dream." Mr. Speaker, this 
well-intentioned path, the dream of protecting 
our unique lands, still has a chance, but the 
future is misty and unless we resolve now to 
protect our farmers and the grape and wine 
industry, the dream will fade, will be lost to 
us and so will the land. 

Mr. Swart: The member for Lincoln stated', 
the purpose of the motion before us is to 
protect the Ontario grape-growing industry, 
which is largely in Niagara. It is a major 
industry and therefore I am going to speak 
in support of the principle of the resolution 
before us. There is some $16 million in 
revenue at the farm gate from the grape- 
growing industry. In fact, I guess it's closer 
to $20 million when we consider the grapes 
sold locally and the grapes sold for grape 
juice. 

I support this resolution in principle, too, 
because it speaks to a very important philos- 
ophy of this party and a very real concern 
we have at the present time that we must 
move towards import replacements in all fields 
of oiu: economy. This is one area where we 
can accomplish exactly that. The amount paid 
out for foreign wines is something in the 
neighbourhood of $150 million a year in this 
nation. If even half of that were switched 
to Ontario wine, to domestic production in 
this province and in this country, it would 
make a substantial impact on our deficit in 
foreign trade. 

I want to make it clear that while I am 
speaking in support of the grape industry, 
I am not really promoting greater consump- 
tion of wine generally and certainly not of 
alcoholic beverages. I think our province and 
our nation would be in much better shape if 
far less alcoholic beverages were consumed. 
It is injurious certainly to individuals. The 
degree of consumption of alcoholic beverages 
is cosdy and injurious to our society. I think 



it is at least as harmful in society as cigarette 
smoking and that is generally accepted' at the 
present time. 

Fortunately, all of our grape production is 
not going into wine. As a matter of fact, 
there is a growing percentage of it going into 
grape juice. Some of the people in this House, 
apart from myself and the member for Lin- 
coln, may have had the opportunity to visit 
the Wiley farm near St. Catharines in the 
Niagara Peninsula where they have started a 
grape juice business on a 370-acre farm and 
are making a very real success out of it. 

I am reaUy supporting this because while 
people drink and while they are going to con- 
tinue to drink the policy should be to maxi- 
mize Ontario consumption vis-a-vis imports. 
Although I support the resolution, I want to 
point out that it is somewhat vague and in- 
complete. I would like to have seen perhaps a 
general policy at least — and this couldn't be 
in the resolution, I grant— in spite of w'hat the 
minister may say of more openness and less 
arbitrariness in the operations of the Liquor 
Control Board of Ontario. I suggest to him 
that he can't read that article in this morning's 
Globe and Mail and many articles previously 
without drawing the conclusion that it is an 
arbitrary body. 

In this resolution the mover makes the 
comment made that he wants to do this in 
order to preserve the unique agricultural land. 
I have to say I was quite amazed to hear the 
member for Lincoln say that the agricultural 
land there is frozen. Or course that is not the 
case at all; in fact, I would like him to tell 
us under what legislation it is frozen. Is it 
under the regional plan' of Niagara? Is it 
under local municipal plans? Is it action taken 
by the provincial goverrmient? Of course, 
there is no freeze there at all. 

Mr. Hall: There are 78 appeals to the mu- 
nicipal board to the urban area boundaries 
and the regional official plan. 

Mr. Swart: The facts are that there is not 
a single major development, whether it has 
been industrial, Commercial or residential, that 
has even been deterred since they passed the 
legislation in the region back in 1973, in 
which they said they were going to preserve 
the fruit and grape land for agricultural use. 
The member for Lincoln knows very well that 
even now there is a request from Niagara-on- 
the-Lake to expand an industrial area on the 
east of St. Catharines which has existed there 
for a decade or more. Only a small amount of 
it has been used. There are 500 acres of it 
there now and they are going to increase that 
to 1,080 acres. According to the growth of 
industry in the Niagara Peninsula over the 
last 20 years, that will be enough to last at 



MAY 31, 1979 



2401 



least to the end of this century just in that 
one little place. That will go through regional 
council. It may not get through the Ontario 
Municipal Board with a bit of luck, 'but it 
will certainly get through the regional council. 

This resolution assuring that there is going 
to be viability to the grape growers will have 
a beneficial eflFect on preserving the prime 
agricultural land, but it won't preserve it 
all unless the government takes the parallel 
measure of having adequate land-use legis- 
lation. I am sure the member for Lincoln 
knows enough about grape growing and 
about land around St. Catharines that was 
selling for $25,000 an acre two years ago 
for development purposes to know that in no 
way can one buy land at $25,000 an acre 
and grow grapes, even if we got through 
these good policies that would preserve that 
land. 

But there must be a viability to the 
farmers. We must, in one way or another, 
assure them there is going to be a market for 
their produce. 

I agree entirely with the member for 
Lincoln when he says Ontario wines are 
good. Certainly we could quote many tests 
that have been made in France and else- 
where. Anyone who knows anything about 
the Inniskillin wines knows they are tops, 
not only in this nation but throughout the 
world. Ontario wine now is just as good as 
any wine produced anywhere in the world. 

i want to say the liquor control board has 
not, through its mark-up policy, really en- 
couraged the use of Ontario wine. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: Nonsense. 

Mr. Swart: That is true. This year the 
mark-up on sparkling wine dropped, it is 
true, from 75 per cent to 70 per cent. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is wrong. 

Mr. Swart: Dessert wine was marked up 
from 70 per cent to 75 per cent. All others 
went up from 47 per cent to 58 per cent. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member's figures are 
wrong. 

Mr. Swart: That meant, on average, there 
was a greater mark-up on Ontario wines, but 
there was no change made on the mark-up 
on the foreign wines. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member does not 
know what he is talking about. 

Mr. Swart: The Grape Growers' Marketing 
Board, the wine institute, estimated if that 
increase in mark-up had been from 47 per 
cent to 50 -per cent, instead of 58 per cent, 
it would have generated enough revenue — 
: this is in their publication, this is what they 
tell us — 



Hon. Mr. Drea: I meet with them. The 
member better be prepared because that isn't 
right and he knows it. 

Mr. Swart: I am prepared. I have con- 
sulted with them too. They said if the in- 
crease in mark-up had been from 47 to 50 
per cent it would have been enough to off- 
set the reduction in the sparkling wine. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: They don't even talk to 
you. That has nothing to do with it. 

Mr. Swart: I would be in agreement with 
the minister that there was merit in reduc- 
ing the mark-up on sparkling wine so there 
would be more consumption of it, with its 
lower alcohol content, and less consumption 
of wine with higher alcohol content. But he 
didn't follow through to do the same sort of 
thing on the wines we import. In fact, by 
the measures taken this last spring the On- 
tario producers were put at a greater disad- 
vantage compared to the foreign producers 
of wine. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member is going to 
regret ever uttering those words. That could 
be the end of his seat. 

Mr. Swart: The pattern of increase for the 
last two years — and that includes the most 
recent increases — shows that the foreign 
wines have gone up something like 30 per 
cent in retail cost. 

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable mem- 
ber's time has expired. 

Mr. Swart: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I 
will just conclude with one sentence. In 
Ontario they have gone up 25 to 30 per 
cent, in spite of the differential in the value 
of the dollar. There is something vvn-ong 
there and I would hope the minister would 
comment on it when he rises to speak. 

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Lin- 
coln had six minutes left. Does he wish to 
use a part thereof? 

Mr. HaU: No. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am not 
going to devote too much time to that slip- 
ped-deck rendition of what is going on in 
the wine industry. I want to be on a much 
more positive note. 

I would draw my friend's attention to the 
fact that I am going to send this Hansard out 
to the grape growers. He may long regret 
some of those word's. 

The fact of the matter: In every area where 
the mark-up changed, ithe grape growers— not 
the wineries, the member does not know 
which side he is on— the grape growers, 
while they might have preferred something 
else, agree that it was in the best long-term 
interest of their indusitry. 



2402 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



There are certain reasons why some of 
those mark-ups were changed. It will become 
abundantly clear in the next few months as 
to why that was done and its significance in 
terms of cash, increased vineyards, more pro- 
duction thalt will accrue. 
[5:30] 

One of the reasons for the change in mark- 
up was a social policy; sparkling wine or pop 
wine, or seven per cent wine should have 
never been at that point. The reason it was 
at that level was that at the time the grape 
growers wanted it there because it only uses 
half as mudh grapes as does table wine. I'm 
sure the farm expert from Welland-Thorold 
is aware of tbe history of thalt particular 
mark-up. 

They now want it changed because of two 
reasons; first, the social responsibility. You 
really can't have seven per cent wine priced 
at the same price as 18 per cent. Second, the 
tremendous increase in the popularity of pop 
wines, both here and abroad and in the prov- 
ince of Quebec, which uses Ontario concen- 
trates, has produced a significant market for 
grapes. 

The real reason for raising the mark-up 
was to ensure that the wineries would be in 
a ix)sition to sell outside of tthe Liquor Con- 
trol Board of Ontario because, you see, when 
diey sell outside of the LCBO they keep the 
entire mark-up. The wineries profit from that 
increased mark-up, not just in their own 
stores but in the more than 100 kiosks and 
supermarkets that have been licensed by this 
minister since last October. They keep all of 
that. 

That is leading to new capitalization in 
table wine. It is also leading to new vineyard 
production— and I'm not talking about varie- 
tal, I'm talking about even Labrusca— that is 
going on there now. It is also providing 
for new equipment, new sales and new 
merchandise. 

Mr. Hall: You're also putting a 10 per cent 
tax on sales, aren't you? 

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes: Oh, yes. 

I want to speak just for a very few 
moments about the Ontario wine industry. I 
must say after some of the dialectic which 
was devoted to it, I really think that I would 
like to particularly thank the mover of this 
motion for the statements he made. I think 
it is very important that it be brought to Ithe 
attention of the public that the i>olicies of 
this government are really set in terms of the 
grape grower by the Minister of Agriculture 
and Food. 

I receive, as dbes the honoimable the 
Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), a very great 



deal of credit for certain implementations- 
and I make no apologies for those— but the 
winery is really only incidental. The very 
common view is we're protecting the winery; 
we're not doing anything with the wine. The 
whole thrust is to the grape grower and I 
think that that is something that should be 
remembered and I commend the mover of 
ithe motion for that, because this sometimes 
escapes public attention. When it is drawn 
to the attention of the public, immediately 
there is a new look at the Ontario wine 
industry from the primary source, which is 
the grape grower, right on through, and I 
think that quite often that has been missed 
in the past. 

It may be of some significance, after the 
member for Welland-Thorold's diatribe about 
the mark-up, to note that I cut the price 
of Ontario brandy even more than the grape 
growers wanted. The reason for that is it 
provides the grape grower with a market for 
the culls in good years— he has to pick them 
anyway. The new market for Ontario brandy 
will allow him to pick them and at least get 
his costs back on it and in a surplus year will 
provide an additional market. I would have 
ithought that the member would have com- 
mended me, the Deputy Premier, and Mr. 
Bosworth, the dhairman of the board. Ob- 
viously that has escaped somewhere in here. 
Mr. Swart: That is only a small part of 
the whole picture. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh, it's a very significant 
part and, once again, they'll love that 
remark, they will love it. 

Just for a moment I want to talk about 
mark-ups in terms of GATT. This govern- 
ment cannot trim the size of the mark-up 
from now on. That is an agreement under 
GATT. We can lower it but we cannot 
expand it between domestic product and 
foreign. We can take into account some 
normal commercial considerations, which are 
handling, freight, warehousing. 
Mr. Nixon: You can lower it. 
Hon. Mr. Drea: We can narrow it, which 
would mean directly opposite to what has 
been suggested here. We can lower the gap 
between both, but we cannot widen it. 
Were we to drop the mark-up on Ontario 
wine, we would have to drop the mark-up 
on imported wines correspondingly. We 
could raise the mark-up— which is intolerable 
and will not be done, but that is a condition 
of the GATT agreement. It was a trade-oflF 
and it was done to protect the export of 
Canadian whisky, which is also a primary 
Canadian agricultural product. It was one of 
the demands of the United States. 



MAY 31, 1979 



2403 



For the moment, let's not talk about mark- 
up, let us talk about merchandising. With 
the introduction of the kiosk into the big 
supermarket and with some of the things 
the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Agri- 
culture and Food (Mr. W. Newman) and I 
intend to do in the next few months, On- 
tario wines have already regained their lost 
share of the market. They have over 50 per 
cent of the total. They were down well 
below that some time ago. They're back 
there now. In the future, they are going to 
dominate this market. 

It's not going to be based entirely upon 
price or entirely upon a captive market. It's 
going to be based upon a fact with which I 
think everyone in this House agrees— that the 
new varietals and many of the table v^dnes 
are among the finest in the world. They are 
a good quality product. So far, the difficulty 
with getting them in commercial amounts in 
hotels and so forth is the inadequacy of the 
supply. As each year goes by, the supply 
becomes more stable as that cycle on the 
varietal grapes does come in. 

Second, there is a thrust by the Ontario 
wine industry away from the fortified wine 
and into the table wine. That is where the 
capitalization is going. That is where the 
research is going. That, quite frankly, is 
where the merchandising expertise is going. 

I think there is an entirely optimistic 
viewpoint shared by both the wineries as 
represented in the wine council and the one 
that is outside of it, and the grape growers. 
They have met with me. They have met 
with the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). They 
met with the Minister of Agriculture and 
Food prior to the budget. They consulted 
with me afterwards. They have made it 
abundantly plain that the policies of this 
government, particularly in regard to mark- 
up, availability of supply, the expansion of 
the freehold store into the kiosk, have given 
them a new hght and a new optimism for 
the future. 

I would like to emphasize that I do not 
believe the future of Ontario wine is in 
tr>'ing to dictate to the consumer that he 
must do this or he must do that; rather, it 
should be based upon a normal commercial 
consideration, which is the mark-up. 

The mark-up on Ontario wine is not an 
awful lot difFerent to the mark-up on foreign 
wine, when you take into account that the 
LCBO pays for warehousing, et cetera, for 
the foreign wine, whereas the Ontario wine 
pays its own. That mark-up becomes remark- 
ably equal, notwithstanding some of the 
media that feel unless it's French it is not 



significant, and if it's French, I should sub- 
sidize the Rothschilds and sell it at a remark- 
ably low price. 

I think the industry should be com- 
mended, particularly the Ontario grape 
growers. Just a httle aside: The women's 
action group, because they felt the grape 
growers perhaps were confining themselves 
too much to agriculture and not enough into 
advertising and promotion, took a giant step 
forward and have been very instrumental, 
not just in the promotion of Ontario wines 
but, indeed, of grape juice, grape jeHies and 
so forth. That has become an exceedingly 
significant market. 

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable 
member's time has expired. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: The grape growers have 
been remarkably consistent. They have been 
fair; they have been honourable; they have 
stated their case well. It will indeed be an 
honour to give them a very special permit 
when they open their new headquarters in 
the Niagara Peninsula because they will be 
the only non-manufacturers of alcoholic 
products allowed to give you a sample on the 
premises so you may find out just how good 
is the quality of brandy and Ontario wines. 

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to par- 
ticipate in this debate and support the re- 
solution of my colleague from Lincoln. I be- 
lieve it would be efi^ective if the minister 
could be persuaded to follow it, if not 
totally, at least in part. 

I'll begin with perhaps what I should be 
ending with, by quoting to the minister from 
the Ontario Wine Advisory Committee Re- 
port, 1974. The minister was not in the 
cabinet at that time but he may recognize 
some of the names appended to the report. 
The chairman was A. Gordon Cardy. One 
of the signatures, as I make it out, is John 
P. Robarts; another one is J. Dean Mun- 
caster; another, J. Charles Grieco; all of 
them, surely, good friends of the minister 
and people to whom he should pay a great 
deal of attention. 

The recommendation from that report is 
particularly significant in the light of what 
the minister has said. He has thrown up his 
hands like Pontius Pilate and said, "There is 
nothing I can do about the mark-up. My 
hands are tied or washed by the provisions 
of the GATT agreement." Then he went on 
to say that if we reduce the mark-up on 
Ontario wines, we would have to do the 
same for imported wines. 

That is not such an incredibly impossible 
thing to consider. After all, the mark-up on 
imported wines is 123 per cent plus 10 per 



2404 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



cent tax on top. And there are those people, 
even though they are wholly committed to 
drinking only wine produced within sight 
of the attic window of the member for 
Lincoln — 

Hon. Mr. Drea: Not you. 
Mr. Nixon: — such as me. 
Hon. Mr. Drea: Not you. Oh, I've watched 
you. 

Mr. Nixon: There is one exception to that, 
and I want to bring it to the minister's at- 
tention in a minute. There are those who 
believe that 123 per cent plus an overall 10 
per cent is too damned much profit for the 
LCBO. After aU, this minister administers one 
of the most powerful monopolies, next to 
Ontario Hydro which isn't really a monopoly 
at all, in Canada — in North America. We 
have a law that only the minister can sell the 
wine. He has his own stores in all the com- 
munities and in my riding, he has the finest 
buildings in the whole constituency except 
for Liberal headquarters. He buys the 
material cheap, marks it up and in some 
instances waters it down, sells it dear and 
slaps 10 per cent on top and he expects to 
stand in the House and have us support the 
initiatives he has taken. 

I believe his initiatives have been com- 
mendable but inadequate and I would sug- 
gest two courses of action, both of them 
directly along the lines of the resolution put 
forward by my friend. I believe the mark-up 
is too high and it could be reduced along 
the lines of the GATT agreement, including 
a reduction in the mark-up of imported 
wines. 

The minister is pointing to one of the 
many empty seats in the front row, the one 
that should be occupied by the Treasurer, 
because this debate concerns him more than 
anybody else. Or is he pointing to the 
Premier's seat? 

Hon. Mr. Drea: Do you really want to cut 
the price of foreign wines? 
Mr. Nixon: I do. 

Hon, Mr. Drea: Let that be put on the 
record. 

Mr. Nixon: Yes, sir. I believe, along the 
lines of the honourable member's resolution, 
that the mark-up reduction on both levels 
of wine would continue the kind of protec- 
tion that even the Minister of Agriculture 
and Food is prepared to support — 

Hon. Mr. Drea: Look at your member. 
Your member doesn't agree. 

Mr. Nixon: — and also expand the market 
in a way which would lead to the profit of 
the growers. 



Hon. Mr. Drea: You haven't helped your 
member. 

Mr. Nixon: I want to get back to the re- 
port signed by John P. Robarts. It says, and 
this is the more important aspect because it 
covers tax, the area directly under the 
responsibility of this government — I quote 
from the report, page 76: 

"The Ontario retail sales tax was originally 
put into eflFect to raise provincial revenue on 
products and transactions from which it de- 
rived no other benefit. In the case of wine 
sales, this premise has been ignored. The 
consumer is made to pay the sales taxes on 
a product controlled and priced by an 
agency of the provincial government from 
which substantial revenue is derived"— a gross 
of $430 million last year. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: No. 

Mr. Nixon: "The committee believes this 
unique tax on tax situation should be recon- 
sidered by the appropriate ministries." 

The minister who is paying attention to this 
debate is one of them. The Treasurer, who is 
absent, is another. The Minister of Agriculture 
and Food is here and certainly in the words 
of the member for Lincoln, it applies to the 
agricultural policy ahead of everyone else. 

I was just saying — and I must be sure that 
tliis is a part of my remarks since everyone 
is going to send this out to all of their wine 
growers; I don't have any in my constituency. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh, yes. 

Mr. Nixon: All right. The only exception to 
the use of Niagara wines are those basement 
vintages that I am not so quick to discredit as 
my colleague from Lincoln has done. I admire 
his judgement in all respects, but if he has 
never tasted the Chateau Nixon rhubarb or 
elderberry 1978, then he knows not of what 
he speaks. I will attempt to remedy that as 
soon as it has aged another few days — 

Hon. Mr. Drea: With dandelions thrown in. 

Mr. Nixon: —and in that respect, his views 
might be changed. 
[5:45] 

I believe the resolution is a significant one. 
It lies within government policy to support 
the growers by reducing the end cost. In my 
view, this would mean that a good and 
healthy Canadian product, full of vitamins 
and food values — 

Hon. Mr. Drea: Ontario product. 

Mr. Nixon: All right, Ontario product 
— would be expanded. I wish I had time to 
talk about the government's kiosk policy be- 
cause to put this in the big supermarkets is 
one thing, but it simply puts the small mer- 
chandiser, the small grocer, at a disadvan- 



MAY 31, 1979 



2405 



tage, I will await with interest what the 
minister does in the future in the limited 
number of months that are at his and their 
disposal to remedy this matter. 

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Went- 
worth for up to five minutes. 

Mr. Isaacs: I rise to oflFer qualified support 
for this resolution. It's a step in the right 
direction, but it's a step that is not at all big 
enough. Because of the limited amount of 
time available to me, I want to address, first 
of all, a couple of comments that were made 
previously by the minister. 

I think the ministry has attempted to take 
some steps in the right direction — 

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have done a lot. 

Mr. Isaacs: — ^but I don't think those steps 
have been big enough. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: That's not true. 

Mr. Nixon: The minister sounds like Jack 
Homer. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: Ask the grape growers. 
They want to make me chairman. 

Mr. Isaacs: I want to oflFer in support of 
that statement some figures published by the 
Liquor Control Board of Ontario, the agency 
that ought to know what is happening in our 
wine industry in this province. That agency 
reported in its 1978 annual report that the 
tonnage of grapes used in the manufacture 
of wine in the province of Ontario has drop- 
ped from 45,000 tons in 1974 to 34,000 tons 
in 1978. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, no. 

Mr. Isaacs: How the minister can call that 
a good record, I really don't imderstand. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: That's not true, and you 
know it. 

Mr. Samis: How can it not be true if the 
figures are there? 

Hon. Mr. Drea: The figures are two years 
old. 

Mr. Isaacs: If the figures are not true, then 
something is wrong with the liquor control 
board's annual report for 1978, which is last 
year. 

I also want to say something about the 
program that board is so very proud of. I will 
quote just two sentences from the introduc- 
tion to the hquor control board's 1978 report. 
It says: "The Ontario wine assistance pro- 
gram, which includes the accelerated distri- 
bution of wines to our retail outlets at reduced 
mark-ups, continues to be a success. The 
sales of Ontario-produced wines have again 
increased during the 1977-78 year." 

The reduced mark-ups, according to the 
liquor control board, are already in place. 



The board claims there are increases in the 
sale of Ontario wines as a result of the 
Ontario wine assistance program. It is a true 
statement that there have been increases, but 
it is nevertheless also true from the board's 
own statistics that the sales of imported wines 
have continued to increase at a rate faster 
than the sales of Canadian wines, both in 
hquor board outlets and in Ontario winery 
outlets. 

Mr. Swart: The minister should be listen- 
ing to this. 

Mr. Isaacs: To give the figures for the 
two years for which the wine assistance 
program has been in eflFect, over the period 
1976-77 through to 1977-78 sales of Cana- 
dian wines in Ontario increased by 20 per 
cent and sales of imported wines in Ontario 
increased by almost 35 per cent. I really 
don't understand how the minister can be 
proud of that record. 

My time is running out. I really feel that 
reduced mark-ups for Ontario-produced 
wine might be a very tiny step in the right 
direction. What we need are some positive 
steps in terms of encouraging farmers to 
produce not only grapes, but other Ontario 
produce, and to put in place policies that 
ensure land is not being removed from 
agricultural production, farms are not sold 
tc speculators and that the economics of 
farming begin to make sense again in the 
Niagara Peninsula, in the Hamilton-Went- 
worth region and throughout Ontario. 

WASTE DISPOSAL 

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Kerr has moved resolu- 
tion 18. 

Resolution concurred in. 

ONTARIO WINE TAX 

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hall has moved resolu- 
tion 17. 

Resolution concurred in. 

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Pursuant to standing 
order 13, I wish to indicate to the House 
the order of business for the remainder of 
this week and next week. 

Bill 105 will not be considered this evening 
but will be considered next Tuesday. To- 
night, Bill 71, The Ontario Heritage Act; 
Bill 93, An Act to provide for the holding 
of Land by Religious Organizations; and 
Bill 94, An Act respecting the Anglican 
Chtirch of Canada, will be dealt with tonight 
in second reading and in committee stage 



2406 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



as required as well. We will go to budget 
debate then if there is time. 

On Friday, in committee of supply we will 
consider estimates of the Ministry of Inter- 
governmental Affairs. 

On Monday, June 4, in the afternoon, in 
committee of supply we will continue with 
the estimates of the Ministry of Intergov- 
ernmental Affairs. On Monday evening, I 
would remind the House, the government 
now having had time to assess the matter 
that arose this afternoon, in accordance w^ith 
the undertaking I gave at that time that if 
all was in order and as straightforward as 
it appeared, there would be no problem. 
Pursuant to that undertaking we will be 
calling the report from the public accounts 
committee re the Royal Ontario Museum 
and the provincial auditor. Later Monday 
night, if there is time, we will have the 
debate on the motion for adoption of the 
report of the standing social development 
committee dated May 25, 1979, re Lakeshore 
Psychiatric Hospital. 

On Tuesday, June 5 in the afternoon we 
will consider Bill 96, The Planning Amend- 
ment Act, second reading only, and Bill 105, 
An Act to amend the Condominium Act, 
second reading and committee if required. 
The following bills wiU go for second read- 
ing at that time and committee as required: 
Bills 90, 92, 99, 88, 89. Tuesday evening, 
BiU 115, An Act to amend the Municipal 
Act, second reading in committee. 

On Wednesday, June 6, resources devel- 
opment, general government and justice com- 
mittees may meet in the morning. 

On Thursday, June 7 in the afternoon, 
private members* public business, ballot 
items 17 and 18. In tfhe evening, Bill 17, the 
Line Fences Act in committee and then 
second reading and committee stage if re- 



quired on the following bills: Bill 46, The 
Local Improvement Amendment Act; Bill 80, 
The Veterinarians Amendment Act; Bill 81, 
The Hunter Damage Compensation Amend- 
ment Act; and Bill 82, The Dog Licensing 
and Live Stock and Poultry Protection 
Amendment Act, a matter of great concern 
to my constituents. 

On Friday, June 8, the committee of 
supply will continue with the estimates of 
the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs. 

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Acting 
House Leader may wish to revise the 
numbers of those balloted items. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is in accord- 
ance with the changes made the other day. 
We will deal instead with the items as 
scheduled for next Thursday, June 7, which 
I presume are items 19 and 20, but we 
changed some of them the other day. 

Mr. McCaffrey: A question of clarification, 
Mr Speaker. My understanding, and I might 
get some advice from any of the other mem- 
bers of the general government committee 
who are here, is that we had undertaken to 
ask of the House leaders the permission of 
the House to enable us to sit, in addition 
to Tuesday and Tuesday evening and all day 
Wednesday next week, on Wednesday night, 
Thursday, Thursday nighlt and Friday as well. 

I know the Acting House Leader mentioned 
something about the general government com- 
mittee. Frankly, I didn't catch it ail. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I referred (to the 
general government committee meeting next 
Wednesday, June 6, but if that information 
is conveyed to us on behalf of the committee 
with concurrence we'll introduce the moltion 
tomorrow morning. 

The House recessed at 5:55 p.m. 



ERRATA 



No. Page Column Line Should read: 

56 2307 2 18 PROVINCIAL COURT 

56 2328 1 3 Provincial Court (Civil Division) 

Project Act, Mr. McMurtry, first reading 

. . . 2307 



MAY 31, 1979 



2407 



APPENDIX 

(See page 2389) 



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 
ON NOTICE PAPER 



PUBLIC OPINION POLLS 

113. Mr. T. P. Reid: Would the ministrv 
provide the titles and subject matter of all 
public opinion polls for each government 
ministry, the cost of each poll, and the name 
of the company which conducted the poll 
from April 1, 1978, until April 1, 1979? 



Would the ministry table copies of each such 
opinion poll? [Tabled April 5, 1979.] 

Hon. Mr. McCague: The tabulation re- 
quested on public opinion polls for the period 
April 1, 1978, to AprU 1, 1979, is attached. 
The polls in question constitute working docu- 
ments for the development of policy and it is 
not the practice of the government to release 
material of this nature. 



2408 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Ti 



§ 

O 
> 



T? 



K^ 4-1 



z 


rt 


<J 


cj 2 


(14 


!>;' 


«^ 



U 





T3 J 



a 



o 
ctf 

■M 



O 
PL, 

o 

d 

OS 

CI 

u 

H 



(J (M 

-60- 







8 



00 





CO 


<N 


10 


l> 


CO 


'^ 




cq 


■<»■ 


■6©- 


■ee- 



OQ Q 
000 

00^0 O^ 
10" i-T o" 

€©-€0-€©- 




.. XI 

CO C 



^ C! 









o C! 



!? 2 ?: y=i s 



1-i ?^ 



,g o o s 
^ ••& ^ ^ ^ 

^ ^ C 4-> 7:3 



g XI (U 

9 o > 

> 



o o .2 



03 



§ 
^ 



9^ © ^ g) 






a)T2 



I 



«*^ CO 

.2*0 

— u 

P4 



o 






13 

1 * 

sj g i 

2'^ © 

eg a» S 



I 

S 






MAY 31, 1979 



2409 



o 
u 



O 

u 





3 


4-* 




•J 


kJ 


t3 


C3 


■— » 




o 

PUl 


(2 


Wl 


9< 


o< 


C 


d 


9 


5 


^ 


^ 


3 


O 


o 


u) 






c 


{3 


a 


o 


1 






1 


1 


CO 

<-M 


u 


U 


2 


Q) 


o 


o 
O 


S 


l5 



o 
o 

o 



o5 S 
«9- <e- 






O 
put 

o 

(3 

.2 






8 

«9- 



O 

U 




ID 

4-> 
PLH 

o 

c« 

C 

a 






4-> 
PLH 

I 

o 

C« 

6 






O 



o 

cU 
C! 



U 



o o 
c^ o 

o c» 

(SI 










I O c« V PM 
' o ^ C C 

-a ^J ^' 

: 2 o S i 
5 ^ p §3 

0) C/3 MH '^ 
"h CO 13 



tG •hCO}-' ,-- , 



>.?^ 



C/3 



„ „ fl O 

•y cJ s? fl 
•g <u ^ o 



c« 5:; c« 

0) O (U 

O g (U 

c3 o; c3 

O 
Pk 



•4-* 

B 

pqo« ««-H'3'-"T3^ h*^-^ 



3 Cfl 



(2 

a 



^ 55^ K > 



I 



C/3 



■5 



O 



2410 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



O 



43 



•a S 

Q 



3 

IS 
s (=1 

i§ 



3 



^3 



O 05" 

(J ^ 

«9- 



8 

O 

8" 

•6©- 



o 

8 



IS 

i 





0) t<l M-l jj 4J 
> 9^ ^ <^ n^ 

H M C3 .^ ■< 

a $j =« .a I 

o, ^M o 52 -a ^ 



CO 

Q 3 



.2 S 

c3 "^ 



■^3 c © 6 '-5 



^ a s 
-5 fi .SJ 



C/3 <D O 



., 7\ -^ " 

© o o g s 

^ o ^ t« "Jh 

0) ,J2 o -^ 




rt -^ q 5 o 



y H E' 



<D 



5 S « «=> 



&}$.■*"©§ 

*** ~ -^ 

§ 



^ •- "^ .^ § 

fl W CO O ^ 

ago rt^ 



O S 2:^ . 
.52 i5H 



^ bo a ■ ■ ^ 

'3 '^ '^ ft © 

o 



»— t 



i 

;5 



MAY 31, 1979 



2411 



H 
on 



n3 



< 

o 
u 



o 

Ph 

Q4 

O 

u 



00 00 

Q r*r 



u 



«9- 



w 
1-1 



? M A 

O rt 



r* 2 2 
Coo 

O t/j 

rt O O 



.a 

P4 



4-1 



0) 
O >— J 

<»^ 1=; ^ 
u o ti 



3 -a 



"5 .i^ 



> 

"" OS 

o "*'^ 



™ ^ !s rt 

^ 4-» 4-» «-H I— I 

o 



OJ O o 

"^ (U 6 

© too c3 

13 rS ^ 

4^ P^ (U 

c4 



h^ 




<Tl 




^ 


l> 


5 




8h.S 




ri 




■ra 






r>^ 






4-> 


ft 
t-l 


3 
S 


CO 


bC 
J 


nd f 
ge of 




t/j 


rrt 


TO 




3 

W5 


s 


fc' 


^ 

lo 



gods 



S 

,04 

3 

8" 



CO "^ lO 



2412 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



SPECIAL EDUCATION 

186. Mr. Bounsall: Will the ministry in- 
dicate how many new special education 
teachers it will require in order to implement 
the special education program it announced! 
on December 15, 1978, and for which it did 
not provide special funding in the 1979 
general legislative grants? Will the ministry 
indicate what eJBForts it has made and will be 
making in order to increase the number of 
special education teachers available andi 
finance the expansion of special education in 
Ontario? Will the ministry also indicate its 
estimate of the number of children requiring 
special education, but not receiving it? 
[Tabled May 17, 1979.] 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: On December 15, 
1978, the Minister of Ediucation announced 
a number of legislative and policy changes 
concerning provisions for the education of 



exceptional children. It was indicated, at that 
time, that appropriate amendments to the 
Education Act would be introduced' to sup- 
port these changes. 

The precise information requested by Mr. 
Bounsall is in preparation in connection with 
the special education initiatives and proposed 
amendments to The Education Act. 

WEIGHTING FACTORS 

187. Mr. Bounsall: Will the ministry cal- 
culate the cash value for each school board 
in Ontario of the language of instruction 
(ESL) weighting factor in 1975, 1978 and 
1979 estimated? Will the ministry also cal*- 
culate the per language of instruction pupil 
value of this weighting factor for each school 
board? [Tabled May 17, 1979.] 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: See the following 
table: 



Language of Instruction 



Board Names 



1975 



1978 



1979 



Cash 
Value 


P/PupU 
Value 


Cash 
Value 


P/Pupil 
Value 


Cash 
Value 


P/Pupil 
Value 


— 


— 


4,866,661 

2,054,990 

74,901 


25.07 

14.35 

4.28 


3,376,033 

2,458,174 

235,304 

79,290 


18.73 

18.04 

14.36 

3.56 


— 




1,035,394 

16,587 

428 


11.56 
1.94 
0.38 


62,832 


0.70 



Boards of Education 

Metro Toronto — Pub. 

— Sec. 
Ottawa — Pub. 

— Sec. 
Separate School Boards 

Metro Separate 
Halton RCSS 
North of Superior 
RCSS 

Note: Until 1978 this was included within the Compensatory Education Component. 



188. Mir. Bounsall: Will the ministry cal^ 
culate the cash value for each school board 
in Ontario of the compensatory education 
weighting factor in 1975, 1978 and 1979 
estimated? Will the ministry also calculate 



the per compensatory education pupil value 
of this weighting factor for each school 
board? [Tabled May 17, 1979.] 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: See the following 
table: 



Compensatory Education 



1975 



1978 



1979 



Board Names 


— Pub. 

— Sec. 

— Pub. 
-— Sec. 

— Pub. 

— Sec. 


Cash 
Value 

1,099,383 

547,034 

513,630 

245,839 

10,637,568 

5,053,809 


P/Pupil 
Value 

37.04 
28.82 
18.52 
14.41 
46.30 
36.02 


Cash 
Value 

1,349,553 

669,221 

646,409 

324,431 

10,086,626 

5,272,806 


P/Pupil 
Value 

51.96 
36.82 
25.98 
18.41 
51.96 
36.82 


Cash 
Value 

1,389,722 

696,750 

681,505 

341,194 

10,154,984 

5,404,168 


P/Pupil 
Value 


Boards of Education 
Hamilton 
London 
Metro Toronto 


56.35 
39.66 
28.17 
19.83 
56.35 
39.66 







MAY 31, 1979 








2413 


Compensatory Educ 


ation 


1975 




1978 


1979 




Cash 


P/Pupil 


Cash 


P/Pupil 


Cash 


P/PupU 


Board Names 


— Pub. 


Value 
585,887 


Value 

27.78 


Value 
681,987 


Value 
38.97 


Value 
692,306 


Value 


Ottawa 


42.26 




— Sec. 


540,370 


21.61 


646,400 


27.61 


662,390 


29.74 


Windsor 


— Pub. 


443,312 


27.78 


723,889 


51.96 


756,492 


56.35 




— Sec. 


280,677 


21.61 


470,910 


36.82 


493,449 


39.66 


Frontenac 


— Pub. 


222,318 


18.52 


267,888 


25.98 


281,301 


28.17 




— Sec. 


112,378 


14.41 


148,960 


18.41 


158,269 


19.83 


Haliburton 


— Pub. 


28,263 


18.52 


36,570 


25.98 


38,102 


28.17 




— Sec. 


9,146 


14.41 


11,374 


18.41 


11,725 


19.83 


Lanark 


— Pub. 


— 




125,348 


25.98 


132,235 


28.17 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


63,713 


18.41 


68,147 


19.83 


Lincoln 


— Pub. 


383,056 


18.52 


495,181 


25.98 


511,121 


28.17 




— Sec. 


188,055 


14.41 


240,803 


18.41 


253,536 


19.83 


Niagara South 


— Pub. 


390,577 


18.52 


484,256 


25.68 


500,657 


28.17 




— Sec. 


209,494 


14.41 


261,316 


18.41 


274,360 


19.83 


Prescott & Russell 


— Pub. 


19,102 


18.52 


31,685 


25.98 


34,836 


27.17 




— Sec. 


62,025 


14.41 


82,528 


18.41 


90,731 


19.83 


Prince Edward 


— Pub. 


62,439 


18.52 






— 


— 




— Sec. 


20,903 


14.41 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Renfrew 


— Pub. 


156,155 


18.52 


190,955 


25.98 


197,175 


28.17 




— Sec. 


105,348 


14.41 


134,614 


18.41 


141,695 


19.83 


Stormont, Dundas 


— Pub. 


141,474 


18.52 


176.444 


25.98 


185,283 


28.17 


& Glengarry 


— Sec. 


125,810 


14.41 


162,140 


18.41 


172,134 


19.83 


Waterloo 


— Pub. 


564,373 


18.52 


783,369 


25.98 


834,494 


28.17 




— Sec. 


245,361 


14.41 


328,859 


18.41 


351,014 


19.83 


Atikokan 


— Pub. 


26,002 


27.78 


31,787 


38.97 


30,242 


42.26 




— Sec. 


13,378 


21.61 


15,492 


27.61 


14,480 


29.74 


Central Algoma 


— Pub. 


30,308 


18.52 


39,077 


25.98 


41,013 


28.17 




— Sec. 


10.821 


14.41 


14,515 


18.41 


15,481 


19.83 


Chapleau 


— Pub. 


6,819 


18.52 


7,716 


25.98 


7,901 


28.17 




— Sec. 


5,487 


14.41 


5,838 


18.41 


5,590 


19.83 


Cochrane-Iroquois 


— Pub. 


49,449 


27.78 


56,623 


38.97 


56,215 


42.26 


FaUs 


— Sec. 


38,208 


21.61 


49,866 


27.61 


53,233 


29.74 


Dryden 


— Pub. 


88,690 


27.78 


148,795 


51.96 


192,416 


70.44 




— Sec. 


36,936 


21.61 


62,055 


36.82 


83,232 


51.55 


East Parry Sound 


— Pub. 


56,131 


18.52 


70,709 


25.98 


72,966 


28.17 




— Sec. 


17,581 


14.41 


24,820 


18.41 


26,139 


19.83 


Espanola 


— Pub. 


— 


— 


— 


— 


28,901 


28.17 




— Sec. 




— 


— 


— 


20,647 


19.83 


Fort Frances- 


— Pub. 


42,729 


18.52 


80,671 


38.97 


84,947 


42.26 


Rainy River 


— Sec. 


21,666 


14.41 


37,038 


27.61 


38,640 


29.74 


Geraldton 


— Pub. 


10,605 


18.52 


12,914 


25.98 


13,582 


28.17 




— Sec. 


7,692 


14.41 


8,765 


18.41 


9,143 


19.83 


Hearst 


— Pub. 


4,371 


18.52 


6,535 


25.98 


10,022 


42.26 




— Sec. 


10,639 


14.41 


15,290 


18.41 


23,875 


29.74 


Homepayne 


— Pub. 


4,461 


18.52 


5,236 


25.98 


5,883 


28.17 




— Sec. 


1,544 


14.41 


1,775 


18.41 


2,145 


19.83 


Kapuskasing 


— Pub. 


22,167 


27.78 


26,300 


38.97 


26,625 


42.26 




— Sec. 


48,995 


21.61 


58,377 


27.61 


60,782 


29.74 


Kenora 


— Pub. 


98,789 


46.30 


118,533 


64.95 


125,210 


70.44 




— Sec. 


58,019 


36.02 


68,984 


46.02 


66,736 


49.57 


Kirkland Lake 


— Pub. 


35,683 


18.52 


39,316 


25.98 


39,479 


28.17 




— Sec. 


24,643 


14.41 


28,632 


18.41 


30,063 


19.83 


Lakehead 


— Pub. 


359,864 


27.78 


455,755 


38.97 


497,637 


42.26 




— Sec. 


199,318 


21.61 


252,232 


27.61 


264,593 


29.74 


Lake Superior 


— Pub. 


21,358 


18.52 


27,642 


25.98 


27,950 


28.17 




— Sec. 


13,584 


14.41 


16,677 


18.41 


17,563 


19.83 



2414 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Compensatory Education 


I 


1975 




1978 


[ 


1979 




Cash 


P/Pupil 


Cash 


P/Pupil 


Cash : 


P/Pupil 


Board Names 


Pub. 


Value 

55,388 


Value 
46.30 


Value 
69,191 


Value 
64.95 


Value 
71,661 


Value 


Manitoulin — 


70.44 




Sec. 


22,084 


36.02 


30,122 


46.02 


31,987 


49.57 


Michipicoten — 


Pub. 


10,577 


18.52 


12,812 


25.98 


13,221 


28.17 


— 


Sec. 


7,721 


14.41 


8,690 


18.41 


9,439 


19.83 


Muskoka — 


Pub. 


91,659 


18.52 


— 


— 




— 




Sec. 


37,409 


14.41 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Nipigon-Red Rock — 


Pub. 


12,003 


18.52 


14,408 


25.98 


15,859 


28.17 




Sec. 


6,886 


14.41 


8,397 


18.41 


8,845 


19.83 


Nipissing — 


Pub. 


115,902 


18.52 


141,833 


25.98 


144,112 


28.17 


— 


Sec. 


101,834 


14.41 


130,269 


18.41 


137,023 


19.83 


North Shore — 


Pub. 


32,150 


18.52 


49,993 


25.98 


54,829 


28.17 


__ 


Sec. 


23,180 


14.41 


32,440 


18.41 


36,473 


19.83 


Red Lake — 


Pub. 


42,249 


37.04 


66,417 


64.95 


69,745 


70.44 


— 


Sec. 


13,439 


28.82 


20,324 


46.02 


20,798 


49.57 


Sault Ste. Marie — 


Pub. 


172,524 


18.52 


208,937 


25.98 


213,920 


28.18 


— 


Sec. 


96,746 


14.41 


123,799 


18.41 


132,945 


19.83 


Sudbury — 


Pub. 


250,594 


18.52 


288,758 


25.98 


300,093 


28.18 


— 


Sec. 


217,487 


14.41 


272,442 


18.41 


282,446 


19.83 


Timiskaming — 


Pub. 


52,688 


18.52 


67,094 


25.98 


70,735 


28.17 


— 


Sec. 


37,111 


14.41 


46,809 


18.41 


49,719 


19.83 


Timmins — 


Pub. 


84,219 


27.78 


110,859 


38.97 


115,661 


42.26 


— 


Sec. 


76,443 


21.61 


99,782 


27.61 


106,850 


29.74 


West Parry Sound — 


Pub. 


47,211 


18.52 


56,852 


25.98 


57,098 


28.17 


— 


Sec. 


18,843 


14.41 


25,629 


18.41 


26,797 


19.83 


Separate School Boards 
















Metro Separate 




3,948,741 


46.30 


4,653,901 


51.96 


5,058,929 


56.36 


Ottawa RCSS 




640,816 


27.78 


711,769 


38.97 


724,909 


42.27 


Windsor RCSS 




506,390 


27.78 


830,271 


51.96 


865,626 


56.36 


Frontenac-Lennox & 
















Addington RCSS 




63,964 


15.74 


97,386 


23.38 


106,435 


25.36 


Hamilton-Wentworth RCSS 


702,338 


31.48 


931,893 


44.16 


991,242 


47.90 


Hastings-Prince Edward RCSS 


7,132 


1.85 


4,782 


1.29 


5,062 


1.40 


Lanai'k-Leeds & 
















Grenville RCSS 




— 


— 


32,027 


11.69 


34,375 


12.68 


Lincoln RCSS 




142,979 


18.52 


195,545 


25.98 


205,415 


28.18 


London & Middlesex RCSS 


155,773 


14.81 


213,460 


20.78 


229,186 


22.54 


Prescott & Russell RCSS 




— 


— 


180,565 


25.98 


191,483 


28.18 


Renfrew RCSS 




114,630 


18.52 


135,890 


25.98 


139,839 


28.18 


Stormont, Dundas & 
















Glengarry RCSS 




177,873 


18.52 


215,755 


25.98 


225,871 


28.18 


Waterloo RCSS 




301,230 


18.52 


410,840 


25.98 


438,959 


28.18 


Welland RCSS 




210,484 


18.52 


280,698 


25.98 


296,518 


28.18 


Atikokan RCSS 




9,585 


27.78 


12,569 


38.97 


11,322 


42.27 


Chapleau, Panet & 
















Caverley RCSS 




7,983 


18.52 


9,928 


25.98 


10,847 


28.18 


Cochrane-Iroquois Falls RCSS 


57,182 


27.78 


68,804 


38.97 


70,244 


42.27 


Dryden RCSS 




11,835 


27.78 


19,841 


51.96 


27,545 


70.45 


Fort Frances-Rainy River RCSS 


8,434 


18.52 


15,751 


38.97 


15,961 


42.27 


Geraldton RCSS 




11,648 


18.52 


16,501 


25.98 


17,640 


28.18 


Hearst RCSS 




29,594 


18.52 


36,010 


25.98 


56,295 


42.27 


Kapuskasing RCSS 




96,099 


27.78 


109,221 


38.97 


11,449 


42.27 


Kenora RCSS 




42,845 


46.30 


54,743 


64.95 


60,835 


70.45 


Kirkland Lake RCSS 




30,165 


18.52 


37,088 


25.98 


40,102 


28.18 


Lakehead RCSS 




179,961 


27.78 


250,693 


38.97 


272,894 


42.27 



Separate School Boards 



\ 



Board Names 

Michipicoten RCSS 
Nipissing RCSS 
North Shore RCSS 
North of Superior RCSS 
Sault Ste. Marie RCSS 
Sudbury RCSS 
Timiskaming RCSS 
Timmins RCSS 



189. Mr. Bounsall: Will the ministry cal- 
culate the cash value for each school board 
in Ontario of the occupations weighting factor 
in 1975, 1978 and 1979 estimated? Will the 
ministry also calculate the per occupations 



MAY 31, 1979 








2415 


1975 


1978 


1979 


Cash P/Pupil 


Cash 


P/Pupil 


Cash 


P/Pupil 


Value Value 


Value 


Value 


Value 


Value 


10,972 18.52 


14,379 


25.98 


15,754 


28.18 


172,499 18.52 


213,414 


25.98 


218,186 


28.18 


56,661 18.52 


73,941 


25.98 


79,490 


28.18 


— — 


29,308 


25.98 


30,434 


28.18 


134,059 18.52 


178,710 


25.98 


188,518 


28.18 


423,620 18.52 


559,132 


25.98 


585,726 


28.18 


38,449 18.52 


45,638 


25.98 


46,983 


28.18 


138,965 27.78 


187,952 


38.97 


201,405 


42.27 



pupil value of this weighting factor for each 
school board? [Tabled May 17, 1979.] 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: See the following 
table: 



Technicad and Occupational 



1975 



1978 



1979 







Cash 


P/PupQ 


Cash 


P/Pupil 


Cash 


P/Pupil 


Board Names 


— Sec. 


Value 
336,344 


Value 
17.72 


Value 
187,207 


Value 
10.30 


Value 
362,253 


Value 


Board's of Education 




Hamilton 


20.62 


London 


— Sec. 


452,269 


26.51 


729,926 


41.42 


842,749 


48.98 


Ottawa 


— Sec. 


154,784 


6.19 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Windsor 


— Sec. 


187,161 


14.41 


— 


— 


2,363 


0.19 


DuflFerin 


— Sec. 


6,564 


3.45 


61,598 


27.24 


35,615 


15.26 


Durham 


— Sec. 


150,181 


9.51 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Elgin 


— Sec. 


49,155 


10.80 


68,052 


14.17 


54,149 


11.30 


Essex 


— Sec. 


216,533 


26.22 


146,921 


17.48 


140,877 


16.65 


Frontenac 


— Sec. 


80,872 


10.37 


227,850 


28.16 


212,063 


26.57 


Grey 


— Sec. 


13,606 


2.59 


31,682 


5.70 


39,459 


7.13 


Haldimand 


— Sec. 


29,998 


11.52 


54,436 


20.98 


56,082 


21.81 


Haliburton 


— Sec. 


7,222 


11.38 


21,382 


34.61 


29,399 


34.50 


Halton 


— Sec. 


202,712 


10.37 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Hastings 


— Sec. 


— 


— 


45,926 


5.70 


19,727 


2.57 


Huron 


— Sec. 


82,565 


19.45 


106,674 


24.85 


92,267 


21.61 


Kent 


— Sec. 


11,828 


1.58 


4,130 


0.55 


— 


— 


Lambton 


— Sec. 


54,215 


6.05 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Lanark- 


— Sec. 


11,960 


5.90 


— 




— 




Leeds & 
















Grenville 


— Sec. 


4,350 


0.72 


3,506 


0.55 


74,431 


11.89 


Lennox & 
















Addington 


— Sec. 


3,386 


1.44 


47,681 


18.04 


27,317 


10.31 


Middlesex 


— Sec. 


121,858 


29.10 


67,678 


15.83 


86,234 


20.22 


Niagara South 


— Sec. 


368,687 


25.36 


125,335 


8.83 


150,808 


10.90 


Norfolk 


— Sec. 


— 




65,361 


16.56 


61,210 


15.66 


Northumberland & 
















Newcastle 


— Sec. 


— 


— 


— 


— 


49,205 


6.14 


Oxford 


— Sec. 


75,863 


12.96 


117,781 


18.96 


92,285 


15.07 


Peel 


— Sec. 


261,825 


9.94 


22,590 


0.73 


— 


— 


Peterborough 


— Sec. 


115,943 


15.56 


102,691 


13.43 


139,576 


18.83 


Prince Edward 


— Sec. 


51,830 


35.73 


74,969 


52.83 


89,442 


63.05 


Renfrew 


— Sec. 


117,922 


16.13 


32,246 


4.41 


43,873 


6.14 


Simcoe 


— Sec. 


118,332 


8.06 


— 


— 


194,246 


12.09 



2416 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Technical and Occui 


jational 


197£ 


) 


1978 


1979 




Cash 


P/Pupil 


Cash 


P/Pupil 


Cash 


P/Pupil 


Board Names 




Value 


Value 


Value 


Value 


Value 


Value 


Stormont, Dundas & 




Glengarry 


— Sec. 




— 


61,562 


6.99 


82,551 


9.51 


Victoria 


— Sec. 


— 


— 


25,382 


8.28 


37,458 


12.09 


Waterloo 


•— Sec. 


429,255 


25.21 


85,385 


4.78 


— 


— 


Atikokan 


— Sec. 


5,887 


9.51 


23,135 


41.23 


24,038 


49.37 


Central Algoma 


— Sec. 


44,037 


58.64 


54,427 


69.03 


38,238 


48.98 


Cochrane-Iroquois 
















FaUs 


— Sec. 


57,321 


32.42 


86,440 


47.86 


96,889 


54.13 


Dryden 


— Sec. 


57,378 


33.57 


16,129 


9.57 


4,795 


2.97 


East Parry Sound 


— Sec. 


37,615 


30.83 


15,140 


11.23 


14,632 


11.10 


Espanola 


— Sec. 


26,083 


26.37 


50,565 


48.23 


50,167 


48.18 


Fort Frances- 
















Rainy River 


— Sec. 


646 


0.43 


7,405 


5.52 


10,810 


8.32 


Geraldton 


— Sec. 


8,845 


16.57 


15,160 


31.84 


13,256 


28.75 


Hearst 


— Sec. 


40,425 


54.75 


53,818 


64.80 


56,992 


70.99 


Kapuskasing 


— Sec. 


14,034 


6.19 


30,341 


14.35 


33,232 


16.26 


Kirkland Lake 


— Sec. 


9,115 


5.33 


28,632 


18.41 


65,827 


43.42 


Lakehead 


— Sec. 


3,966 


0.43 


38,643 


4.23 


29,982 


3.37 


Manitoulin 


— Sec. 


29,858 


48.70 


11,441 


17.48 


17,913 


27.76 


Michipicoten 


— Sec. 


21,000 


39.19 


1,128 


2.39 


2,170 


4.56 


Muskoka 


— Sec. 


67,706 


26.08 


50,080 


18.04 


19,459 


7.13 


Nipigon-Red Rock 


— Sec. 


27,405 


57.35 


7,722 


16.93 


7,783 


17.45 


Nipissing 


— Sec. 


4,028 


0.57 


— 


— 


1,312 


0.19 


North Shore 


— Sec. 


65,133 


40.49 


91,153 


51.73 


129,100 


70.19 


Sault Ste. Marie 


— Sec. 


134,411 


20.02 


138,593 


20.61 


155,539 


23.20 


Sudbury 


— Sec. 


226,090 


14.98 


65,261 


4.41 


— 


— 


Timiskaming 


— Sec. 


— 


— 


85,177 


33.50 


105,883 


42.23 


West Parry Sound 


— Sec. 


38,250 


29.25 


2,561 


1.84 


— 


— 


Timmins 


— Sec. 


15,281 


4.32 


49,873 


13.80 


— 





Note: EfiFective 1978 this component recognized Technical only, and Occupational became 
part of the Special Education component. 



190. Mr. Bounsall: Will the ministry cal- 
culate the cash value for each school board 
in Ontario of the special education weighting 
factor in 1975, 1978 and 1979 estimated? Will 
the ministry also calculate the per special 



education pupil value of this weighting factor 
for each school board? [Tabled May 17, 
1979.] 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: See the following 
table: 



Special Education 

Board Names 

Boards of Education 

Hamilton 

London 

Metro Toronto 

Ottawa 

Windsor 



1975 



1978 



1979 



— Pub. 

— Sec. 

— Pub. 

— Sec. 

— Pub. 

— Sec. 

— Pub. 

— Sec. 

— Pub. 

— Sec. 



Cash P/Pupil 
Value Value 



955,153 

801,230 

9,828,837 

647,085 

1,037,007 



34.44 

28.89 

42.78 

4.61 

49.17 



441,716 27.68 



Cash P/Pupil 
Value Value 



1,599,153 

1,003,832 

1,464,001 

324,431 

16,490,742 

7,829,013 

1,482,102 

1,249,722 

754,538 

501,477 



61.57 
55.23 
58.84 
18.41 
84.95 
54.67 
84.69 
53.38 
54.16 
39.21 



Cash P/Pupil 
Value Value 



1,636,234 

1,045,125 

1,642,417 

341,194 

17,999,108 

8,456,447 

1,490,745 

1,325,003 

580,530 

715,415 



66.35 
59.49 
67.91 
19.83 
99.89 
62.06 
91.02 
59.49 
43.25 
57.50 







MAY 31, 1979 








2417 


Special Education 




1975 




197£ 


} 


1979 




Cash 


P/Pupil 


Cash 


P/Pupil 


Cash J 


P/Pupil 


Board Names 


— Pub. 


Value 
252,271 


Value 
21.11 


Value 
565,132 


Value 
50.01 


Value 
671,639 


Value 


Brant 


61.42 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


315,953 


48.60 


376,391 


57.70 


Bruce 


— Pub. 


52,286 


7.31 


193,102 


27.01 


262,210 


36.19 




— Sec. 




— 


21,884 


6.07 


23,916 


6.54 


Carleton 


— Pub. 


351,640 


15.83 


1,013,892 


45.46 


1,046,649 


47.47 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


296,641 


18.41 


328,845 


19.83 


Dufferin 


— Pub. 


127,075 


28.89 


282,508 


61.83 


346,929 


77.63 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


41,631 


18.41 


45,696 


10.83 


Durham 


— Pub. 


485,846 


16.48 


714,358 


24.29 


1,031,049 


35.50 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


402,130 


22.82 


505,947 


28.55 


Elgin 


— Pub. 


77,970 


8.42 


278,247 


31.69 


300,615 


35.22 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


48,601 


10.12 


52,232 


10.90 


Essex 


— Pub. 


220,150 


21.02 


273,426 


27.53 


79,767 


53.68 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


222,819 


26.51 


385,826 


45.60 


Frontenac 


— Pub. 


278,979 


23.24 


574,548 


55.72 


835,463 


83.69 




— Sec. 


3,353 


0.43 


311,271 


38.47 


417,821 


52.35 


Grey 


— Pub. 


231,784 


23.24 


538,394 


58.19 


591,921 


66.22 




— Sec. 


— 




30,681 


5.52 


42,874 


5.94 


Haldimand 


— Pub. 


58,481 


12.13 


150,887 


35.59 


186,307 


45.92 


Haliburton 


— Pub. 


33,773 


22.13 


58,867 


41.82 


78,673 


58.18 




— Sec. 


3,103 


4.89 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Halton 


— Pub. 


188,206 


6.11 


530,676 


18.70 


1,019,929 


37.05 




— Sec. 


— 




292,340 


14.17 


312,337 


15.26 


Hastings 


— Pub. 


480,347 


35.37 


925,352 


77.94 


948,729 


84.53 




— Sec. 


5,764 


0.72 


148,334 


18.41 


171,947 


22.40 


Huron 


— Pub. 


110,448 


14.44 


304,609 


44.16 


320,657 


48.04 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


19,746 


4.60 


21,134 


4.95 


Kent 


— Pub. 


293,480 


24.35 


575,038 


53.25 


717,057 


68.04 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


127,151 


16.93 


134,554 


18.24 


Lambton 


— Pub. 


292,941 


20.46 


399,851 


30.91 


441,506 


35.78 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


169,093 


19.51 


149,679 


18.64 


Lanark 


— Pub. 


185,019 


35.74 


300,826 


62.35 


373,539 


79.60 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


56,065 


16.20 


77,666 


22.60 


Leeds & Grenville 


— Pub. 


341,270 


32.41 


712,860 


74.43 


792,880 


86.08 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


36,342 


5.70 


187,424 


29.94 


Lennox & Addington 


i — Pub. 


197,642 


37.96 


285,563 


59.36 


303,964 


65.79 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


140,137 


53.02 


52,542 


19.83 


Lincoln 


— Pub. 


530,528 


25.65 


960,630 


50.40 


999,174 


55.08 




— - Sec. 






72,201 


5.52 


75,945 


5.94 


Middlesex 


— Pub. 


230,585 


27.78 


322,305 


42.60 


352,844 


48.04 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


77,896 


18.22 


83,718 


19.63 


Niagara South 


— Pub. 


382,563 


18.14 


1,452,769 


77.94 


1,271,588 


71.57 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


593,179 


41.79 


669,368 


48.38 


Norfolk 


— Pub. 


110,340 


15.74 


265,440 


43.90 


326,398 


56.35 




— Sec. 


— 




72,662 


18.41 


77,509 


19.83 


Northumberland 
















and Newcastle 


— Pub. 


257,740 


18.89 


487,575 


39.22 


465,362 


38.88 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


78,765 


9.75 


84,146 


10.50 


Oxford 


— Pub. 


190,724 


16.66 


323,834 


32.08 


380,287 


39.30 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


23,978 


3.86 


25,474 


4.16 


Peel 


— Pub. 


390,169 


8.14 


2,634,929 


52.99 


3,238,711 


66.23 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


882,903 


28.53 


1,043,465 


32.91 


Perth 


— Pub. 


797 


0.09 


217,767 


28.05 


256,315 


34.09 




— Sec 


— 


— 


3,627 


0.73 


3,830 


0.79 


Peterborough 


Pub 


325,514 


27.13 


464,210 


32.21 


524,575 


49.31 




— Sec. 


— 




54,824 


7.17 


20,532 


2.77 



2418 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Special Education 




1975 


1978 


1979 




Cash 


P/Pupil 


Cash 


P/Pupil 


Cash 


P/Pupil 


Board Names 




Value 


Value 


Value 


Value 


Value 


Value 


Prescott and 




Russell 


— Pub. 


— 


— 


4,902 


4.02 


869 


0.70 


Prince EdSvard 


— Pub. 


33,714 


10.00 


— 




— 


— 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


4,172 


2.94 


— 


— 


Renfrew 


— Pub. 


343,507 


40.74 


392,422 


53.39 


522,470 


74.67 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


134,614 


18.41 


141,695 


19.83 


Simcoe 


— Pub. 


165,312 


6.29 


789,700 


30.78 


1,019,509 


40.43 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


298,565 


18.59 


375,800 


23.39 


Stormont, Dundas 


— Pub. 


200,829 


26.29 


327,284 


48.19 


421,489 


64.10 


and Glengarry 


— Sec. 


— 


— 


162,140 


18.41 


172,134 


19.83 


Victoria 


— Pub. 


148,790 


25.92 


277,120 


49.23 


410,198 


74.81 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


11,281 


3.68 


12,269 


3.96 


Waterloo 


— Pub. 


1,266,802 


41.57 


2,067,879 


68.58 


2,390,702 


80.73 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


953,532 


53.38 


687,869 


38.86 


Wellington 


— Pub. 


91,313 


6.20 


264,691 


19.09 


413,165 


30.43 




— Sec. 


— 




159,197 


18.41 


167,799 


20.02 


Wentworth 


— Pub 


55,056 


4.16 


210,785 


18.57 


265,749 


24.65 


York 


— Pub. 


457,368 


16.39 


1,049,520 


41.17 


1,466,515 


59.31 




— Sec. 


33,390 


2.16 


153,358 


9.20 


400,634 


24.39 


Atikokan 


— Pub. 


— 




10,935 


7.27 


47,156 


32.40 


Central Algoma 


— Pub. 


29,392 


17.96 


70,920 


47.15 


78,335 


53.82 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


14,515 


18.41 


46,131 


59.09 


Cochrane- 


— Pub. 


53,063 


29.81 


38,867 


26.75 


85,820 


64.53 


Iroquois Falls 


— Sec. 


— 


— 


52,865 


29.27 


39,736 


22.20 


Dryden 


— Pub. 


96,671 


30.28 


151,372 


52.86 


95,421 


34.93 




— Sec 


— 


— 


34,128 


20.25 








East Parry Sound 


— Pub. 


93,441 


30.83 


150,237 


55.20 


164,533 


63.54 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


50,881 


37.74 


71,354 


54.13 


Espanola 


— Pub. 


69,060 


61.20 


85,352 


77.94 


86,703 


84.53 




— Sec. 


6,696 


6.77 


10,033 


9.57 


10,735 


10.31 


Fort Frances- 


— Pub. 


21,133 


9.16 


32,903 


18.31 


23,489 


11.68 


Rainy River 


— Sec. 


— 


— 


15,802 


11.78 


5,664 


4.36 


Geraldton 


— Pub. 


2,702 


4.72 


2,127 


4.28 


21,661 


44.94 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


8,765 


18.41 


10,697 


23.20 


Hearst 


— Pub. 


3,101 


13.14 


9,508 


37.80 


4,942 


20.84 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


45,870 


55.23 


15,919 


19.83 


Homepayne 


— Pub. 


4,639 


19.26 


8,952 


44.42 


11,795 


56.49 


Kapuskasing 


— Pub. 


15,073 


18.89 


— 













— Sec. 


— 


— 


32,307 


15.28 


33,620 


16.45 


Kenora 


— Pub. 


69,536 


32.59 


58,071 


31.82 


66,349 


37.33 




— Sec. 


— 


— 







4,267 


3.17 


Kirkland Lake 


— Pub. 


39,961 


20.74 


54,449 


35.98 


72,240 


51.56 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


19,456 


12.51 


20,436 


13.48 


Lakehead 


— Pub. 


171,512 


13.24 


642,524 


54.94 


946,455 


83.41 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


400,228 


43.81 


441,019 


49.57 


Lake Superior 


— Pub. 


— 


— 


18,790 


17.66 


21,938 


22.11 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


50,031 


55.23 


52,690 


59.49 


Manitoulin 


— Pub. 


15,396 


12.87 


11,760 


11.04 


38,833 


38.17 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


36,151 


55.23 


38,388 


59.49 


Michipicoten 


— Pub. 


10,520 


18.42 


14,153 


28.70 


16,922 


36.06 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


26,072 


55.23 


28,317 


59.49 


Muskoka 


— Pub. 


106,309 


21.48 


195,901 


42.99 


217,064 


48.75 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


72,567 


26.14 


50,328 


18.44 


Nipigon-Red Rock 


— Pub. 


7,797 


12.03 


24,779 


44.68 


42,024 


74.67 




— Sec. 


— 


— 


17,967 


39.39 


7,074 


15.86 



MAY 31, 1979 



2419 



Special Education 

Board Names 
Nipissdng 

North Shore 
Red Lake 
Sauh Ste. Marie 

Sudbury 

Timiskaming 

Timmins 

West Parry Sound 



1975 



1978 



1979 



Pub. 

Sec. 

Pub. 

Pub. 

Pub. 

Sec. 

Pub. 

Sec. 

Pub. 

Sec. 

Pub. 

Sec. 

Pub. 

Sec. 



Cash 
Value 



P/Pupil 
Value 



158,771 25.37 

100,131 57.68 

18,797 16.48 

191,435 20.55 

199,176 14.72 

15,092 1.00 

29,217 10.29 

119,295 39.35 

33,267 13.05 



Cash P/Pupil 
Value Value 



311,290 

40,333 

149,979 

79,701 

463,797 

209,201 

742,014 

730,014 

75,797 

32,291 

114,529 

199,601 

51,447 

76,888 



57.02 
5.70 
77.94 
77.94 
57.67 
31.11 
66.76 
49.33 
29.35 
12.70 
40.26 
55.23 
23.51 
55.23 



Cash 
Value 



P/Pupil 
Value 



335,753 65.65 



116,225 

83,695 

593,595 

341,650 

978,294 

742,793 

110,686 

80,534 

131,468 

168,107 

121,035 

80,392 



59.73 
84.53 
78.19 
50.96 
91.86 
52.15 
44.09 
32.12 
48.04 
46.79 
59.73 
59.49 



Separate School Boards 



i 



Metro Separate 


1,389,308 


16.29 


3,803,910 


42.47 


5,855,110 


65.23 


Ottawa RCSS 


608,752 


26.39 


692,774 


37.93 


966,545 


56.36 


Windsor RCSS 


20,233 


1.11 


361,126 


22.60 


385,200 


25.08 


Brant RCSS 


16,192 


4.72 


172,418 


49.49 


154,004 


44.80 


Bruce-Grey RCSS 


59,287 


20.64 


137,766 


40.91 


145,248 


42.55 


Carleton RCSS 


292,337 


20.55 


742,640 


47.67 


571,890 


36.63 


Dufferin-Peel RCSS 


46,288 


2.77 


788,883 


33.51 


935,176 


35.78 


Durham RCSS 


142,047 


17.50 


319,182 


39.22 


268,278 


32.82 


Elgin RCSS 


— 


— 


16,459 


10.65 


18,872 


12.39 


Essex RCSS 


183,055 


18.61 


410,666 


41.56 


511,279 


51.71 


Frontenac-Lennox and 














Addington RCSS 


60,551 


14.90 


150,953 


36.24 


160,829 


38.32 


Haldimand-Norfolk RCSS 


9,260 


3.51 


30,417 


11.95 


40,855 


16.48 


Halton RCSS 


— 


— 


— 


— 


110,951 


12.54 


HamUton-Wentworth RCSS 


173,353 


7.77 


907,202 


42.99 


1,163,209 


56.21 


Hastings-Prince Edward RCSS 


98,160 


25.46 


204,665 


55.20 


226,180 


62.55 


Huron-Perth RCSS 


23,136 


7.77 


40,185 


15.58 


83,483 


34.09 


Kent RCSS 


6,092 


1.11 


66,334 


12.60 


192,513 


37.05 


Lambton RCSS 


78,855 


16.29 


204,480 


39.09 


248,074 


47.48 


Lanark-Leeds and 














Grenville RCSS 


21,986 


7.22 


135,946 


49.62 


96,240 


35.50 


Lincoln RCSS 


135,800 


17.59 


349,994 


46.50 


399,531 


54.81 


London and Middlesex RCSS 


3,891 


0.37 


362,923 


35.33 


409,668 


40.29 


Oxford' RCSS 


34,142 


16.94 


34,248 


18.05 


92,052 


47.34 


Peterborou gh- Victoria- 














Northumberland etc. 


105,987 


17.50 


147,725 


26.49 


224,697 


41.00 


Prescott and Russell RCSS 


1,364,075 


181.68 


436,061 


62.74 


406,884 


59.88 


Renfrew RCSS 


103,736 


16.76 


341,713 


65.33 


388,008 


79.19 


Simcoe RCSS 


81,004 


14.81 


126,041 


23.25 


122,541 


22.82 


Stormont, Dundas and 














Glengarry RCSS 


414,430 


43.15 


647,266 


77.94 


582,712 


72.70 


Waterloo RCSS 


153,543 


9.44 


564,866 


35.72 


627,597 


40.29 


Welland RCSS 


149,339 


13.14 


842,094 


77.94 


852,411 


81.01 


Wellington RCSS 


— 


— 


4,884 


1.03 


121,456 


26.20 


York RCSS 


100,776 


17.59 


429,375 


52.60 


497,781 


57.06 



2420 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Special Education 


1975 




1978 


1979 




Cash 


P/Pupil 


Cash 


P/Pupil 


Cash 


P/Pupil 


Board Names 


Value 
2,394 


Value 
6.94 


Value 


Value 


Value 
13,170 


Value 


Atikokan RCSS 


49.17 


C!hapleaU) Panet & 














Caverley RCSS 


715 


1.66 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Cochrane-Iroquois Falls RCSS 


— 


— 


33,245 


18.83 


32,072 


19.30 


Dryden RCSS 


— 


— 


19,196 


50.27 


22,971 


58.75 


Fort Frances- 














Rainy River RCSS 


— 


— 


6,507 


16.10 




— 


Geraldton RCSS 


22,069 


35.09 


6,846 


10.78 


32,013 


51.14 


Hearst RCSS 


— 


— 


54,723 


39.48 


49,529 


37.19 


Kapuskasing RCSS 


46,423 


13.42 


123,402 


44.03 


163,811 


62.13 


Kenora RCSS 


16,280 


17.59 


65,691 


77.94 


73,002 


84.54 


Kirkland Lake RCSS 


33,471 


20.55 


68,794 


48.19 


103,060 


72.42 


Lakehead RCSS 


— 


— 


177,100 


27.53 


268,310 


41.56 


Nipissing RCSS 


9,407 


1.01 


65,059 


7.92 


77,418 


10.00 


North Shore RCSS 


75,354 


24.63 


148,964 


52.34 


100,138 


35.50 


North of Superior RCSS 


— 


— 


61,977 


54.94 


61,776 


57.20 


Sault Ste. Marie RCSS 


40,825 


5.64 


138,469 


20.13 


206,379 


30.85 


Sudbury RCSS 


425,679 


18.61 


1,241,152 


57.67 


1,390,944 


66.92 


Timiskammg RCSS 


39,777 


19.16 


136,915 


77.94 


140,951 


84.54 


Timmins RCSS 


97,695 


19.53 


216,119 


44.81 


284,645 


59.74 


Note: Effective 1978 this component gave 


recognition to "Occupations 


" — See 


note to 



question 189. 



STUDENT DROPOUTS 

191. Mr. Bounsall: Will the ministry ex- 
pand on its reply to written question 116, 
subsection 4(d)? Specifically, what percentage 
of grade nine students reach and complete 
grade 13 in each Ontario school board? What 
percentage of grade one students reach and 
complete grade 13 in this province? In each 
case please provide a male/female break- 
down. [Table<i May 17, 1979.] 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The following tabu- 
lation (table 1) shows for each school board, 
by sex, the number of students enrolled in 
grade nine in 1974 and the number of grade 
13 students enrolled in these same boards in 
September 1978. 

In calculating the survival ratio or the 
grade retention rates for each board, a num- 
ber of assumptions have been made: 

(a) The grade nine students who were en- 
rolled in Roman Catholic separate schools in 
1974 are not included in the individtial board 
totals, but a number of these students would 
be enrolled in grade 13. Thus, the survival 
ratios in the right-hand column may be some- 



what misleading for those boards of educa- 
tion which have the same boundaries as a 
large enrolment separate school board. 

(b) In 1974, there were 2,497 students en^ 
rolled in grade nine in the private schools in 
Ontario. Two years later, there were 11,591 
students enrolled^ in grade 11 of these schools, 
and in 1978, there were 7,288 students en- 
rolled in grade 13. Some of these students 
were grade nine students in the publicly sup- 
ported schools in September 1974. 

(c) No allowance is made for gross migra- 
tion between grades. For example, students 
may enter or leave the school board at any 
grade level, so there is no assurance that the 
students who are enrolled in grade 13 are 
id'entically the same students who first en- 
rolled in grade nine. 

(d) No allowance is made for grade re- 
peaters. 

Table 2 shows the grade 13 student enrol- 
ments (by sex) in September 1978 as a per- 
centage of corresponding grade one enrol- 
ments in 1966. The assumptions made in (b), 
(c) and (d) above still apply. 



MAY 31, 1979 



2421 








05 J> 


I— ( 05 


cci: 


w« 


paw 




fcs 


wpH 


C/3 W 


SS 


CO "-• 


^ </) 


§1 




^^sJ 




s» 


J w 


OQ 


a^< 


Zrt 


WO 


{^O 


gs 


WQ 


QZ 


^2 


C/3 C/5 


OS 


rtO 


wu 







-3 




4-) 


^ 




.2 




o 




•J3 

0} 


0) 

-73 


PC 




-a 

> 


b 


•g 









C/3 


o 




a 




:s 



Q 

<: 
o 

PQ 



C005<-lC^CCIOC<lCO'^CDCOCD10t>t--cOCqV5©qcOOOCDTf<05<DW5'~' 
05C0Ol'^^C0pc0(»C0<NC0l005rH<No<C05CCjc0li0C0'«1I10^ 

r-lC^COC010rHC^i-l»-lCO<N^<CtNCqoqcOrHTt< (NoC|rHlOCqc0CO 

050CDCOCOlO<3500001>COTj<cqt^05^COQ10lCOOcOOOCOO<Ml2 
lO 05 Tf 05 00 00 CD O lO 05 05 Tf CO* c5 00 i-H l6 lO l> <r) t^* C<i 05 rH CO 

fH cocN'^i-icqoq»-icocsicsiu3coc^(Sicoi-ico ojcq iocqoqco 

O5lO00COCOoqcDC0CO"^C<lcO'^CO"«^COlOC0'^'^O5i-HlC00O5Cql> 
TtJ 00 t-^ lO O iq 00 00 '^. "^, lO Tt< 00 p CO TtH p 05 O CO l> C» 00 00 CD CO w 

CD* rr l> rH -^ 05 l> l> C<i lO CT5* CD* c4 00 CD 00* '-H* O* CO O "-<* C35* T^' "-5 oi oq" 00 

1— icococoiiO i-ti-H«Nco(Sii— ioocq(Mi-<'^c<jT}<i-(oqi— ii— iiocsjcocq 



to 

00 



o 

o 

CJJ 



Si's 



a> 






4J 


a 


a 


o 


o 




s 




W 


0) 


CO 


13 


f— 1 


S 


01 


V 


T3 


W 


etf 




l>4 




o 




00 


V 


r- 


ctf 


OS 

1— 1 


s 



05i-IOOOOt^001CCD05i-<05CDCOOCOcOOOc00005CD(SI'^<:5cqoO>-l 
oa CO O CD O C^ Csl C35 05 ~* "^ "^ '^ "^ -^ "^ "^ -~ — . -^ ^ -., ^ ^ ^, --^^ 
CD CM t> 



■ > v^^ >^.< >k/ ^ >. J \.j WW 1.J vAj \^j ^^ V.N -vj- ^^.j v,-^ v^j I— I ro 

CQl^CDOOCD05CDOOC:50'-tCDOOCq05l^oqCD M 
(N(N t^CO rJ^-H C30 C0<-1 Tfjcqt- 1^1 



(N 



^ ^ 



COOO<NQ00001C10t^C0050<N»-iTt<0'-HO>cqi^OO'^0500 

—I OOOqCDi— li— (^C0>— ti— I'Tjt'^OO'^'^CDcOl^ C7»05 l> 

C^i— It^ 1— ICDCO'— i<N05C0>— I '—I 

i-H 



05 00 1— I r-t 1> 
l> O CO CO 
CD CO 



« CDCOC0000500^-^e^OOOCD'^C35C35CO^'"^CDC^OOOO^O'-t^H^-'Tt^ 
13 I— lC^Cs|'^rcOi-li-(lOCD>-HCDCq'^t^'^C<l<NlOCO'-tCDOO>— ICNIt^OiCq 
<^ COf-HOB i-HCO'^'— tC<|C<|'«t'-H COCDCO 









l> 



00 



CD 



4-* 




f! 


cd 


0) 

E 




o 




^ 




W 


^ 






-^ 


W 


IH 




o 




Tj< 


V 


h- 




05 

»— 1 


^ 
S 




10CDCD<M00»0CDC0CDt^l0c0'^CD10'^10OCD<SI00Ocq00CDOCDOQCJ)ei 

0000»— 1"— l0005lO<MCOOOCNlCDOCT)100l>CDC^'— I"— 1»— I0505COC^O'— lO 00 

OO'^IO Cv|<N(Ni— irHCDlOrHi— (CDtMOii— ll>"^ <N10'-<>— I CD CM 

r-( eq I— I cq oq cm i-m 



t^CDCOO500lOCDCDCDCOCD00CD00CD00O500COCD<-HOq<-HCDl>l>'^lOCD'^00 
OiCDCDCDcOOlOOOb-COC010COCOOOOOOlO>— l'-Hl>'^0'^10'— IOOCqi> "—I 
oort^f-'— I CsJoqcOCNrHlCCD'— ioq050q0'-il>"^i— ilOC35cq CD CO 



oq 



cq 



cq 



Wpa 

14-1 *^ 

O pQ 

PQ W 



W 



PQ 
WW7_ 

^ ° §w 

PQ Q 






w 

«w 



w 

Ml 

o 
PQ 

^w 

W o 

.J5PQ 
o 



c§c5 



^ fc ?« g 






<i CQ « pqU 



Fi 


o 


3 




<S 




O 




bcm 


KH 


c« 


< 


s 


ID 


Q 


"nj 






fl 






S.I 




enti 
bap 
och 


^ 


UUUQ 




2422 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



00 

1— ( 05 
^^ 

M Pi 

CM H 
CO "-• 

rH C/5 
H 

w 

:^ 
o 

w 



W 

Q 

O 
Z 

Q 

o 

WO 

Hg 

^« 
WQ 

QZ 

wo 
z^ 





-^ 


^ 




d 








o 


0) 






«J 


rt 


Pd 


a 


13 
> 


W 






3 




C/2 


0) 




ci 




:s 



v^ ^ * ^ • ». * — r -^ .-^N .»^ -^ v^ /•/■^ -*.J ^ —jj /-^ ■^-H ^M (•r^ ^j tfi CiTi \n \r\ m-i ^-i r\A rr\ _^ »X rNT <—^ ■»-M CO r(~\ 



^ 



l> I> 1> 



^ ^ 



C0CN|C<l«NC0rH'-fC<IC<l(NC<|O^CqoqC0 



10iO'-HO00C0rH10CNO'^<X>CD 

tN'^coTjicqrHcocqcqcqcotNco 



.2 (D 

•5 ':3 t^lol>oooo<x>^-05l^»-^«r>co(^lI-^05cDiOloo^rc^cooT^o5cooco'-^coocc^co 

cS G I> CO Cq 00 Cq rH ■-< cq lO «N -^^ <-H '^. O C<l '-H ^^ 00 <X5 tp o ^^ 

f*^ C ^ ^ ^m^ »«^ »*» J /.** ! v^ * ^/^ »*^ .»-J ^^ rt^ 1^ cTN t^-T /~(-\ /^i /v^ (V> •»*< rA /vi —j rX /»/> >i^ cr^ b-j ^J fo -^^ \r\ 



CO aJ a> CD IC i-I CD 1-H b-* CD »0 O 00 CD CT5 CO 1> CO cq CO 00 r:!^ CO <>i 

c^,_i,_H,_icqcocococqcococ<i cqoqcqi-ncqoqcNcooq'^co 



. ,00C0'— ICO'— ii— iCDTt<10 

Ti<<Ni-tcocq(Ncqco{Nco 



4-> 

C! 


-^ 


0) 


■M 


s 


O 


o 




a 




w 


© 






CO 


a 


1— 1 


y 


(V 


<u 


T3 


W 


03 




M 




o 




00 


d) 


t^ 


<a 


05 
I— 1 


^ 



O,_lt^,_(C<Ii>0005CDOCq00CDt>C<|00t^'-<lC05OcqCDt^l0O05a5CD0510C0Tj<05 

00 cq 1— I CD 05 Tt< o c» Tf csi p iq rH i-j CO 00 CO CO p 05 CO p CO cq t-- CO t'^ c<j 1— i CO lo 
^-^cDcot^cDlocD^'odod^^c4(^qcoo^•— <odi— io6o5cdi>oc>o6cocqT}^^ 
cqrHi-irHcqoqcooqcqcocoi-ii-ic^coo^cocqoqcqcocqrj^coM^cqi-icocqcqcqcocqco 



0'^OCOCO'^C7)C^1C0500'«;}<CD'^1>OOCDI>(MCDCD'-Hi— lOc0t>050>00Oi005Cq 

C<lO500"«tCDT}<Tj<00r-l0000'^i— ll>i— ICOCOxfiT^cqcOT^COi— (Tficqi-Hi— lO50OC0C:500CO 

i-Hrti CDCDCO^CqrHb- C<|C<105 10Cq<— iCOiOOilOOO"^ CDCq CDrfrH 

rH i-H CO Cq (Nj CO 



CO 



oq 



cq 



COOTI<CO'^050101>'— I'^CO'— lOOCOC<|OCs|C<It^C00050010C010C35000 

cq rH CO cq Tj< 



ioio^Gq<-Hcoi>'^ocoocq tj<oO'— fcocqcDi>-iQc<iioj>o 
- - - - -- CD (N CO cq CO cq 



CO CO >— f cq .— I lo 00 



rH I— < -^ 



cq 



l>CO00lOl>Tt<lOO> 

CD Tj4 CO cq Tf< I— 1 1> c'j 
cq CO CO >-i cq 



0000505COCO'^0500'^OCDT}<05Tft-i— lOO'-H'^lOlOCDOiTf 

cqoorH coi— icqi-<ocqcDCD05coiocDoq cq^^^jHrHcocoio 
C0C35 rHi— iio cof— 1 CRcqcocqrfcq coi— i cooqco 



s 


4-1 
O 

H 






o 




g 




W 


^ 


€^5 


C3 

s 

w 


M 




o 




Tf« 


© 


I— 1 


13 



"^cocot^cssxfcoi-it-cviooiob-cDiiOCDcocDcqcqocqcqoqoiOiot^oocrjcocqcoio 

cDOiiocococ;5cococDa5cqi>iOrHcqi>cqoocot^05corHT}<cqoc<icoi>o-^'— icqio 

"^t^-'^cqiocqoicDi^i— lOicqi— (1— ii>i>»— lOrHTficO'— iiocD05iOrHOirHTj<r-iOoocD 

cq cqcq i-h cO'^ <-! co oqi— i 05cqco>-tcorH rHi— i cqi— loo 



COt-OOlOOi— li-Hb-t-OSOiTj^COCqCDi— ICOOOC010l>cqrHC00505l>COC<I050'^005 
Cq05i-loqiOCDOOJ>l>COlOC<lOO'^1010CDCT)Tf<CDOOCOlLOO<NrHCO'^0005l-^rHa>'— I 

c<icqcq>-(cqo'^i>coiO(N _ .--. ^.- -. 



N4' \. J \,^ st^ I 1 (.J \^^ UV "J L^ ^N ' — > (.J WJ 

C<l00'^1010CDCT)Tf<CD00C0lL0O<N.. 

-.rH 10C01> C35iocqcooooocoi> 

cq rH -^ I-H CO CO 



lO 



c:5 00 cq 



i-<05iccqc:>coiOTi<o 

'^O5C0^00CQ001OO5_, 

cqT}<c<|i— icvjcqT}<oocococO'-< 
>— 1 1— I rH ph cq 



C005rH"^-^051000005t^COOrH050'-HOOTj<(r)rHCOOOCDCO 

CqC0101>l>CDCqCDOOOOOOCOCDc00001005ro01>05cOCO 

cnro,-* iorr>,— ^ OlOCqC"— '"^OOCOt^ 0510Cq 005"^ 

i-l lO "-H CO CO r-i -fH 



lO CO o 

cq 



o 




w 



w ° 
o W 



w 

Q 
PQ 






m 



o o PQ 

I DC 



^ CO 

mpq ^ 

cr)>-' g 

J-> 4-) -M 

M 1h J-j 

o o o 



w 

o 

«o^ 

g^pq 
OOpli 



w 



PQ 



w 



w 



W o 



w 



OpQ 

PQpq 

■« I 

Vh 4-> 

Ph P4 



PQ^ -^ 



° ;^ 



PQ 



1^ 

S CO 



3 

O 

O 

u 

a 



W 



WW 
o o 

mpQ 



w 



PQ 



^ TJ ^ 
^W =^ 

Ih Ih ^ 

Pi^ P-( pQ 



CO 



PQ 
3 J3 

c3 O 

C/3 c/b 



MAY 31, 1979 



2423 





n 


^ 




.a 




o 




•a 


<u 


a 


a 


Pi 


e 


> 








3 




CO 


o 




'^ 




:s 



CD 05 00 CC5 T^ lO t-^ i-H '^' 1-H CO 00 CO C) 

(Mc<icqc<icqco<Ncoco^coc<ic<ico 



t-i— (005ioc^oo;0'-i"^'^Tf<Or-< 

i-H t-; >-H 'rr O 00 00 cq CO /^ 1> lO CO i-l 

lO O !>* 00 lO CO CJJ O CO* «-H CO" 00 00 o 
<MCOOl<M<MCO<NCOCO'^cq(N|oqcO 



<N t> cq 00 Tj< 



_ _ t- CO lO lO o 
_ -nj^ P C5_ cq CO p 05 CO 

CD rjJ oi oq i-J Oi 00 co' <-h 



OQOOOCO-^— . -,_, .^. -w.v. . 
<N(NC0C<|(NC0CvlCOCO'^C0Cs|cqcO 



4-1 

0) 


3 


s 


o 
H 


o 




g 




U 


(D 






CO 


rt 


I-H 


6 


o 


0) 




fe 


u 




O 




00 


© 


t^ 


C3 


05 


:s 



TfCO'-H-— (Oit^"— lO"^'— fOCvlOCO o 

cDcqc<j05^cooqcopTt<cqt^p<-H co 



rH t~- '-H I-H 



CD<NTl<t-l>>-ia>l^Tj< 

CO "-H I-H CO 



oocpcqcoOTj<cDcooocDc<icqco 
cot^oSo<NOcqco>-HiOT}<iocDio 

ICCO'^'-Hi-Hb-i-HCOTTCO TJ^COCO 



CO 

CD 
CO 
CO 
CO 



J^ rI<C0lQ0>C0l>l^'^'-HC0"^O00O 
13 C01OCN00<N00O5CD0000l>cqc0CO 



C01Oo500<N00O5CD0000l>cqc0CO l^ 
COCOCO f-i Oi !>C0CO iOCOl~-00 

1-H CO 

oq 



o 



wo 



C/3 



Si 

C/5 C/i 

wu 

s9 



4-> 




'o 




g 




U 


j^ 


05 




■^ 




Ui 




o 




•^ 


a> 


t^ 




OS 

I-H 


S 



I-H pH Q CM t^ 

ic CO O CO Q cq I-H 

CO'^Cr5l^0100010COl>CO'^CDlO 
rf (N CO ~ " 



i-HC0C^<NO00OTt< lO 
OOOOiCOCOCDOO l> 

f-HO '^Cyqi-H COCSjTt"i-H 

I-H CO 



^ as 2 m lo I-H 00 I-H l^ lO I-H 00 "^f oq T}< 05 

O^ S o o CO lo 05 cq I-H o cq CO i> 00 t- 

_, _£ S i-Hcqooco-^OTjioqi-Hooi-Hiooq 

Z^tti C^i-Hi-H lO (N>-t i-Hi-H 



CO 

CO 

l> 



Q 

o 



10CD05rtCDTfCDCqi-HOOOOTt<i— IW O 

Tt'cqcot^'-HC^soioooocqooiOi— lO "^ 

(McqocOiC'^cocOi— iO3i-H00Tt<Tt< rr 
(Mi-Hc5 lO (Mi-H i-Hi-HCq"^ 

00 



o 



w 



n 



o 

4J S ""H tlH 

Q O bO '-' 
02 .S P3 

s^.s a 

CO c« CO H H 



UUU 



W 



PQ 



W 



o o 



m 



m 



5 o 



o 
U 



<4rl 

CO 






W 



» 



W >^^ 



O c(j_0 bCgcLi s;?;r"i 



■5 C^m 



fe o 



JH o «S <U 



•-i. hi. O O 



►J 
< 

O 
H 



> 

ets 
o 



2424 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Table 2 , 

NUMBER OF STUDENTS ENROLLED IN GRADE 13 IN 1978 AND CORRESPONDING 
GRADE 1 ENROLMENT IN SEPTEMBER 1966 



Male Female 



1966 Grade 1 enrolment in publicly supported schools 

(Public and RC Separate) 91,048 

1966 Grade 1 enrolment in all schools 

(Publicly supported and Private) 92,081 

1978 Grade 13 enrolment in publicly supported schools 28,185 

1978 Grade 13 enrolment in all schools ., 32,172 

Survival Ratios, 1966 to 1978, Gradb 1 to Grade 13 (per cent) 

In publicly supported schools 30.96 

In all schools 34.94 



Total 



82,291 173,339 



83,299 


175,380 


24,975 


53,160 


28,289 


60,461 


30.35 


30.67 


33.96 


34.47 



DECLINING ENROLMENT 

192. Mr. Bounsall: Will the ministry in- 
dicate what efiForts beyond the funding of the 
commission on declining enrolment it has 
undertaken to assist local school boards to 
deal with declining enrolment? Will the min- 
istry indicate the cash value to local school 
boards of these efforts? Secondly, in. view of 
the recent reports that the Premier has stated 
that the province has not lessened its commit- 
ment to education even though the propor- 
tion of the provincial budget allocated to 
education has declined from fiscal 1975-76 
to fiscal 1979-80, would it be accurate to 
calculate the province's savings from declin- 



ing enrolment by calculating what the prov- 
ince would have contributed! had it main- 
tained funding at the level existing in fiscal 
1975-76 and subtracting the present level? If 
this is not the case, will the ministry indicate 
how much money the ministry has saved as 
a result of declining enrolment and what 
benefits accrue to local school boards as a 
result of declining enrolment? [Tabled May 
17, 1979.] 

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We require addi- 
tional time to prepare our response to the 
above question. The answer will be ready for 
tabling on or about Fridiay, June 8, 1979. 



MAY 31, 1979 2425 



CONTENTS 

Thursday, May 31, 1979 

New planning bill, statement by Mr. Bennett 2365 

Dover township flooding, statement by Mr. Auld 2366 

Tritium in drinking water, statement by Mr. Auld 2367 

Nuclear plant safety, statement by Mr. Auld 2367 

Municipal legislation, statement by Mr. Wells 2369 

Tritium in drinking water, questions of Mr. Auld: Mr. S. Smith, Ms. Gigantes, Mr. 

J. Reed 2370 

Point of privilege re ministerial statements, Mr. McCaflFrey 2371 

Nuclear plant safety, questions of Mr. Auld: Mr. S. Smith, Mr. Cassidy, Mr. Nixon, 

Mr. Foulds, Ms. Gigantes 2371 

Government purchasing, questions of Mr. Grossman: Mr. Cassidy, Mr. di Santo 2374 

Employment development fund grants, questions of Mr. Grossman: Mr. Bradley, Mr. 

Cassidy, Mr. Epp 2375 

Bonar and Bemis dispute, questions of Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Mackenzie 2376 

Liquor and wine prices, questions of Mr. Drea: Mr. Breithaupt, Mr. Swart 2377 

Toronto OHC housing, questions of Mr. Bennett: Mr. Dukszta, Mr. Epp 2378 

Disposal of PCBs, questions of Mr. Parrott: Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hall, Ms. Bryden 2380 

Caledonia dam, question of Mr. Auld: Mr. G. I. Miller 2380 

Falconbridge hiring, question erf Mr. F. S. Miller: Mr. Laughren 2381 

Point of order re rules of the House, Mr. Foulds 2381 

Report, standing public accounts committee, Mr. Hall 2382 

Report, standing members* services committee, Mrs. Campbell 2383 

Point of order re committee report rule, Mr. Grossman 2383 

Re standing public accounts committee, Mr. Hall, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Makarchuk, Mr. 

Foulds, Mr. Grossman , 2385 

Motion to adjourn debate, Mr. Hall, agreed to 2388 

Re standing members' services committee, Mrs. Campbell 2388 

Motion to adjourn debate, Mrs. Campbell 2388 

Motion re committee substitutions, Mr. Grossman, agreed to 2388 

Regional Municipalities Amendment Act, Mr. Wells, first reading 2388 

Municipal Amendment Act, Mr. Wells, first reading 2388 

District Municipality of Muskoka Amendment Act, Mr. Wells, first reading 2388 

County of Oxford Amendment Act, Mr. Wells, first reading 2389 



2426 LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Royal Ontario Museum Amendment Act, Mr. Grande, first reading 2389 

Tabling answers to questions 113, 186, 291, 292 on Notice Paper, Mr. Grossman 2389 

Private members' public business, re resolution 18 on waste disposal: Mr. Kerr, Mr. 

Gaunt, Ms. Bryden, Mr. Sterling, Mr. McKessock 2389 

Speaker's ruling re recording of names 2397 

Re resolution 17 on Ontario wine tax: Mr. Hall, Mr. Swart, Mr. Drea, Mr. Nixon, 

Mr. Isaacs 2397 

Resolutions 18 and 17 concurred in 2405 

Business of the House, Mr. Grossman 2405 

Recess 2406 

Errata 2406 

Appendix, answers to questions on Notice Paper 2407 

Public opinion polls, question of Mr. McCague: Mr. T. P. Reid 2407 

Specid education, questions of Miss Stephenson: Mr. Bounsall 2412 

Weighting factors, questions of Miss Stephenson: Mr. Bounsall 2412 

Student dropouts, questions of Miss Stephenson: Mr. Bounsall 2420 

Declining enrolment, questions of Miss Stephenson: Mr. Bounsall 2424 



MAY 31, 1979 2427 



SPEAKERS IN THIS ISSUE 



Auld, Hon. J. A. C; Minister of Energy; Minister of Natural Resources (Leeds PC) 

Bennett, Hon. C; Minister of Housing (Ottawa South PC) 

Bradley, J. (St. Catharines L) 

Breithaupt, J. R. ( Kitchener L ) 

Bryden, M. ( Beadhes-Woodbine NDP) 

Campbell, M. (St. George L) 

Cassidy, M. (Ottawa Centre NDP) 

di Santo, O. (Downsview NDP) 

Drea, Hon. F.; Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Scarborough Centre PC) 

Dukszta, J. (Parkdale NDP) 

EdighoflFer, H.; Deputy Speaker (Perth L) 

Epp, H. (Watei^loo North L) 

Foulds, J. F. (Port Arthur NDP) 

Gaunt, M. ( Huron-Bruce L ) 

Gigantes, E. (Carleton East NDP) 

Grande, A. (Oakwood NDP) 

Grossman, Hon. L.; Minister of Industry and Tourism (St. Andrew-St. Patrick PC) 

Hall, R. (Lincoln L) 

Isaacs, C. ( Wentworth NDP ) 

Kennedy, R. D. ( Mississaugai South PC) 

Kerr, G. A. (Burlington South PC) 

Laughren, F. (Nickel Belt NDP) 

Lawlor, P. D. (Lakeshore NDP) 

MacBeth, J. P.; Acting Speaker ( Humber PC) 

Mackenzie, R. (Hamilton East NDP) 

Makarchuk, M. (Brantford NDP) 

McCaffrey, B. ( Armourdale PC ) 

McClellan, R. (Bellwoods NDP) 

McKessock, R. ( Grey L ) 

McMurtry, Hon, R.; Attorney General; Solicitor General (EglintonPC) 

Miller, Hon. F. S.; Treasurer, Minister of Economics (Muskoka PC) 

Miller, G. I. ( Haldimand- Norfolk L) 

Newman, B. ( Windsor- Walkerville L ) 

Nixon, R. F. (Brant-Oxford-Norfolk L) 

Parrott, Hon. H. C; Minister of the Environment (Oxford PC) 

Peterson, D. ( London Centre L ) 

Reed, J. ( Halton-Burlington L ) 

Reid, T. P. (Rainy River L) 

Riddell, J. K. (Huron-Middlesex L) 

Samis, G. (Cornwall NDP) 

Smith, S.; Leader of the Opposition ( Hamilton West L) 

Sterling, N. W. ( Carleton-Grenville PC) 

Stokes, Hon. J. E.; Speaker (Lake Nipigon NDP) 

Swart, M. ( Welland-Thorold NDP) 

Sweeney, J. ( Kitchener- Wilmot L ) 

Warner, D. ( Scarborough-EUesmere NDP) 

Watson, A. N. (Chatham-Kent PC) 

Wells, Hon. T. L.; Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Scarborough NorA PC) 

Wildman, B. (Algoma NDP) 



[ ■ / 




^■"^ No. 59 

Ontario *^^' ^^ 



Legislature of Ontario 
Debates 

Official Report (Hansard) 



Third Session, 31st Parliament 

Thursday, May 31, 1979 
Evening Sitting 

Speaker: Honourable John E. Stokes 
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, QC 



,....>i-.v.> 



CONTENTS 



Contents of the proceedings reported in this issue of Hansard appears at the back, 
together with an alphabetical list of the speakers taking part. 

Reference to a cumulative index of previous issues oan be obtained by calling the 



Hansard Reporting Service indexing staff at (416) 965-2159. 



f Vw 



Han^d subscription price is $15 per session from: Sessional Subscription Service, 
Printing Services Branch, Ministry of Government Services, Ninth Floor, Ferguson Block, 
Parhament Buildings, Toronto M7A 1N3; phone (416) 965-2238. 

Published by the Legislature of the Province of Ontario. 

Editor of Debates: Peter Brannan. .. ggg ae^ vio 



,-m 



2431 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



The House resumed at 8 p.m. 

ONTARIO HERITAGE AMENDMENT ACT 

Mr. McCaflFrey, on behalf of Hon. Mr. 
Baetz, moved second reading of Bill 71, An 
Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable 
parliamentary assistant have an opening 
statement? 

Mr. McCaflFrey: I do, Mr. Speaker, thank 
you. 

The primary purpose of this amendment is 
to clarify the wording of section 37 of the act, 
specifically to enable municipalities to enter 
into heritage easement agreements with own- 
ers of real property for the conservation of 
buildings of historic or architectural value or 
interest. 

When the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974 was 
first enacted, it was clearly intended that 
municipalities would be authorized to embark 
on easement programs to protect heritage 
buildings. Since then, several municipalities 
have approved in principle the taking of heri- 
tage easements, but unfortunately they have 
been unable to proceed with such a program 
because legal questions have been raised as to 
the express authority of municipalities to do 
so under the existing legislation. 

In proposing this amendment, the ministry 
is responding to the requests of several mn- 
nicipalities which wish to further their abihty 
to protect heritage buildings at the local level. 
By encouraging municipalities to engage in 
heritage easement programs, new impetus will 
be given to heritage preservation in the prov- 
ince. These local programs will complement 
the ongoing heritage easement program which 
is operated at the provincial level by the 
Ontario Heritage Foundation. 

The participation of municipalities as part- 
ners of the Ontario Heritage Foundation in 
broadly based heritage preservation programs, 
is in fact a keynote of the Ontario Heritage 
Act. Under this proposed amendment to sec- 
tion 37, local inhabitants will be able to work 
with their municipal governments to preserve 
buildings which are of special significance to 
their communities- 
Mr. Ruston: Point of order. I wonder if you 
would check to see if there is a quorum in 
the House; I don't believe there is. 



Thursday, May 31, 1979 

Mr. Haggerty: There is not an NDP mem- 
bo: in the House. 

Mr. Deputy Speaker called for the quorum 
bells. 

On resiunption: 

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a 
quorum. Would the honomrable parliamentary 
assistant continue. 

Mr. McCaflFrey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 
With your permission, I think it might be 
appropriate if I just backtrack a wee bit for 
the benefit of my New Democratic Party col- 
leagues so they catch the spirit of the 
amendment. 

Mr. Bounsall: Take it as all read. 

Mr. Foulds: You can backtrack any time 
you want; your party is a master at that. 

Mr. McCaflFrey: By encouraging municipali- 
ties to engage in heritage easement programs, 
which is really the purpose of tonight's 
amendment, new impetus will be given to 
heritage preservation in the province. These 
local programs will complement the ongoing 
heritage easement program which is operated 
at the provincial level by the Ontario Heritage 
Foundation. 

The participation of municipalities as part- 
ners of the Ontario Heritage Foundation in 
broadly based heritage preservation programs, 
is in fact a keynote of the Ontario Heritage 
Act. Under this proposed amendment to sec- 
tion 37, local inhabitants will be able to work 
with their municipal governments to preserve 
buildings which are of special significance to 
their commimities. 

Bill 71 proposes a fmrther amendment to 
the existing section 37(1) by ehminating the 
necessity for municipalities to designate 
buildings before taking heritage easements. It 
is anticipated that this amendment will sim- 
plify heritage easement programs and make 
it less expensive for municipalities to acquire 
heritage easements. 

Finally, Bill 71 proposes that sections 22 
and 37 be amended by adding a provision 
whereby, should a property be both desig- 
nated and subject to a heritage easement, 
the terms of the heritage easement shall 
prevail. This amendlmenlt will eflFectively 
avoid a possible conflict between the provi- 
sions of sections 33 and 34 of the Ontario 



2432 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Heritage Act, 1974 and the terms of an ease- 
ment agreement. 

The ministry places a high priority on the 
passage of Bill 71. Several municipdities are 
now waiting to sign heritage easement agree- 
ments with owners of historic buildings. 
Without these amendments, municipal heri- 
tage easement programs cannot proceed. 
These amendments themselves are essentially 
of a housekeeping nature and are intended to 
encourage local heritage initiatives at the 
municipal government level. I have nothing 
further to say at this time, other than to re- 
quest the sujyport of all members of this 
House for this bill. 

Mr. Breithaupt: I am pleased to rise in 
support of Bill 71. My colleague the member 
for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil), who is the critic for 
this ministry, had a commitment in his con- 
stituency this evening and he asked me to 
carry the bill on our behalf. 

May I, first of all, commend the Ministry 
of Culture and Recreation, because this is the 
first opportunity I have had to see a com- 
pendium of this natm-e with respect to a bill. 
It has proved to be a mosit helpful compila- 
tion, not only of the present sections of the 
bill but also the proposed ones, together with 
some examples of the kinds of agreements 
thalt are being entered into in order to 
attempt to safeguard some of the particular 
and peculiar buildings that are in the prov- 
ince, ones that are worthy of preservation 
and yet the preservaltion of which should be 
done in accordance with their ongoing use 
and activity within the community. 

I understand that the Association of Munic- 
ipalities of Ontario has viewed this bill, and 
at least unoflBcially the response has been 
favourable to the ministry in bringing forward 
this legislation. It is true, I suppose, that to 
a degree some form of municipal autonomy 
is in principle slightly interfered with by 
legislation of this sort. However, the intent 
of the bill is really to protect the interest of 
municipalities, as I see it, in saving historic 
sites. 

Presumably if there has been any real com- 
plaint about the operations of tiie Ontario 
Heritage Foundation, it was really that it 
hasn't been able to become involved enough 
in helping municipalities prdtect and encour- 
age the development of their historic build- 
ings. Bill 71 also has appeal to the Association 
of Municipalities of Ontario in that it places 
more emphasis on the province for preserving 
heritage properties. I (tihink this is considered 
appropriate since it is particularly a provin- 
cial resix)nsibility. 

I was interested in reviewing an article 
which appeared in the Globe and Mail on 



May 9 concerning certain buildings on Old 
Mill Road in Etobicoke. It appeared to me 
from the photographs Ithat these buildings, 
two very nice homes at 71 and 73 Old Mill 
Road, might not necessarily be included as 
historic buildings, but they certainly api)ear 
from the photographs that accompany this 
article to be very handsome structures and 
well worthy of consideration by a munic- 
ipality as to the stock of particular buildings 
and projects which any one mimicipality may 
have within its boiuidaries. 

That's an example of two buildings which 
could, and indeed may prove to be lost. 
Whether they are particularly worthy of 
preservation is not a decision we would have 
to face here. However, in the eyes of their 
own citizens within that community, and 
limited to the oi>portunities that council or 
a local heritage or historical society might 
have, these are the kinds of projects, depend- 
ing upon the age or the style of the com- 
munity, that are worthy of consideration as 
we look to the implementation of this legis- 
lation. 

The purpose of this bill is to allow munic- 
ipalities to make the kinds of easement 
agreements with owners for tihe purpose of 
protecting buildings with a local historic 
interest. The Ontario Heritage Foundation 
is still going to act to protect ^uctures of 
regional or provincial interest and it will con- 
tinue to be empowered to make the easement 
agreements or convenants where ilt might be 
necessary to do so. 

As a person who has been involved in the 
Waterloo Historical Society over a number 
of years, it is a pleasure for me to see the 
developing interest that people have, not 
necessarily because of their particular back- 
ground in architecture or history within a 
community, but as citizens who see a link 
with the past, an attractive building, a par- 
ticular site being torn down or threatened 
with destruction and being replaced with 
something that obviously has very little archi- 
tectural merit. 

[8:151 

This bill is meant to improve the present 
situation where municipalities really haven't 
any authority to protect the property after 
the 270-day official designation period. That 
period, of course, has proven to be useful as 
a stall tactic against immediate or indiscrimi- 
nate alteration or destruction by an owner, 
and as well that delay provides some time 
for a community to mobilize the people who 
are interested in helping to save a particular 
site where it is of proven value. 



MAY 31, 1979 



2433 



I am sure that most members of the House 
would agree that simply because a building 
is of a certain age, this does not necessarily 
guarantee it has architectural merit or that 
there are not other buildings within a com- 
munity that might be more worthy of pres- 
ervation. But the designation of a building, 
which we have seen on occasion by munici- 
palities in the province, is really not an effec- 
tive method of heritage conservation. The min- 
ister I think acknowledges that fact, and he 
has introduced this bill to bring forward the 
kind of amendments that are going to be 
useful to preserve and assist in the preserva- 
tion of a variety of structures within the 
province. 

As the parliamentary assistant has men- 
tioned, there are certain municipalities at 
present waiting for the passage of this legisla- 
tion so they can proceed with particular 
projects. I understand that Toronto, Ottawa, 
Kingston, and as well the municipality of 
Haldimand-Norfolk, are among those munici- 
palities interested in attempting to proceed 
with certain projects which they believe to 
be in the best interests of their own com- 
munity when they look at the history and the 
particular items worthy of preservation within 
their own municipalities. 

I am not certain how the members of the 
third party may face this legislation. I under- 
stood that perhaps they viewed the handing 
of this power to municipalities for tfie designa- 
tion of heritage buildings somewhat im- 
certainly in that the operation by the pro- 
vincial government would be a better way of 
dealing with the subject. I think the responsi- 
bility for heritage protection may well, in most 
cases, be a responsibility that should rest with 
the province. However, I also think we have 
an opportimity here to have something in 
addition to the provincial responsibility, 
something which can be dealt with at the 
municipal level and an intelligent balance 
struck as to how we can best preserve these 
various projects. 

In this bill there are really three particular 
principles. The first one, of course, as is set 
out in the second section, is for the munici- 
palities to convince the property owners to 
enter into an easement agreement; and for 
this to happen, in some cases certainly mone- 
tary incentives are going to have to be offer- 
ed. It may not be enough simply to designate 
a structure of a building or a fagade, but 
rather there are going to have to be some 
costs involved in ensuring that the mainten- 
ance or the protection of those particular 
areas may be something which the owner of 
the building is prepared to accept. 



The Ontario Heritage Foundation in the 
past has provided grants of 10 to 15 per cent 
of the value of buildings to assist in this 
preservation and that, indeed, may also be- 
come a requirement or an expectation if a 
municipality chooses to become involved. 
However, that is a matter of the contract 
between the parties, and I am certain that 
can be worked out by persons on both sides, 
persons involved at the municipal govern- 
ment level or through heritage or historical 
groups that believe the provision of those 
public funds is worthy; and as well the 
owners and occupiers of buildings who would 
prefer to have the structures maintained if 
that financial differential could be of assis- 
tance and could be reasonable in the circum- 
stances. 

The amendments we see in the bill will 
leave that financial burden with the munici- 
palities. I would suggest that the parliamen- 
tary assistant should give some consideration 
to the plight that some of the smaller muni- 
cipalities or perhaps some of those in northern 
Ontario that have a less strong tax base 
would have in being prepared to commit 
those funds to particular local projects, when 
there are so many other things to which they 
must address their attention and for which 
they have limited resources. 

It may be, for example, in northern Ontario 
that a particular building in a community is 
very much an important part of the heritage 
of that community. Yet the funds necessary 
to upgrade it or to ensure that it continues 
may be a bit of a strain on the tax base or 
on the opportunities which that commimity 
has as it looks at the other portions of its 
budget. There may be some requirement for 
the funds of the Ontario Heritage Foundation 
to be somewhat available to a degree in par- 
ticular circumstances for the municipality that 
has something worthy to maintain and for 
which the ownership is not a requirement by 
the foundation. That kind of middle groimd 
may be a development which would be for 
the benefit of both the foundation and the 
municipalities, as well as the owners and 
occupants of the building, and more impor- 
tantly, for the people of the municipalities 
and for the province. 

The second particular item deals with that 
area of local autonomy to which I had re- 
ferred. There could be a certain tension 
which may only be partially resolved by 
the actions set out in Bill 71. It's my 
understanding that the Association of Mu- 
nicipalities of Ontario has no particular bill 
and that suggestions have been made over 
the years from time to time that amendments 
of this nature should be available to munici- 



2434 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



palities to bridge the gap between ownership 
and strong involvement by the Heritage Foun- 
dation and the alternative of destruction or 
desecration of a particular historic site. 

The responsibility for heritage conserva- 
tion, it can well be argued, should be the 
particular domain of the provincial govern- 
ment. But we do have this opportunity to 
have some middle ground, as I had suggested. 
I think thalt second issue of autonomy versus 
provincial responsibility can be met with the 
goodwill that's necessary in ensuring that 
this kind of provision of support for these 
structures and for these various locations is 
encouraged. 

The third ix>int that does arise as a matter 
of principle out of this act is to inquire into 
the steps which the ministry itself has taken 
to protect government buildings. Honourable 
members will no doubt recall that I have 
introduced a private member's biE with re- 
spect to the preservation of this building. 
The whole idea of having a curator of 
Queen's Park with perhaps a distinguished 
architect, someone like Eric Arthur or some- 
one with interest in the historic sites within 
the province, would be the kind of a sound- 
ing board which would be very useful in 
ensuring that structural changes in a building 
such as this are not made without full con- 
sideration of what is being done and how 
things may be developed in the future. 

Mr. Lawlor: Particularly the Amethyst 
Room. 

Mr. Breithaupt: I was going to speak to 
the Amethyst Room, as the member for Lake- 
shore has suggested. The wallpaper isn't 
exactly what I would have chosen, but, on 
the other hand, to see the old po^ office 
room, those who have been here for a few 
years remember it, turned into a very attrac- 
tive and useful committee room is the kind 
of thing which I find very encouraging. 

Mr. Lawlor: If you bring your constituents 
there, you'll never get elected again. 

Mr. Breithaupt: I don't know whether 
that's the case or not. 

Mr. Lawlor: It's a palatial unnecessity. 

Mr. Breithaupt: Let's just say that not only 
can the committee rooms, hopefully, be de- 
veloped and made more useful and attractive 
but their historic structure can be preserved. 

As part of this bill, when we look at that 
other legislation to whidh I have referred 
briefly, the ministry has a responsibility not 
only to assist in the encouragement of the 
preservation of a variety of building sites 
across the province but to look particularly 
at its own inventory of structures. I don't 



know whether there is an inventory of his- 
toric properties which are either owned or 
controlled by the province of Ontario. It may 
be, for example, that the odd liquor-store site 
in downtown Toronto happens to be in a 
very handsome building and that the building 
should not be interfered with, even though 
the use of a cei^tain floor space or area might 
change from time to time. 

I think it's worthwhile to look into that 
kind of thing because, as we can tell from 
the students and young i)eople in the galleries 
here this evening, there are many people who 
are becoming more and more interested in 
the preservation of our heritage in an intel- 
ligent way. Obviously, every building may 
not be successfully taken care of and may be 
a duplication, but there are so many gems of 
architecture and style across the province 
in a variety of building forms that are worthy 
of being dbveloi)ed and maintained that we 
run a serious risk unless we deal with these 
projects soon. 

I do suggest, therefore, that there are these 
particular points to which the parliamentary 
assistant may v^dsh to address himself as we 
complete the debate on second reading. I 
believe that the bill is worthy of support. 
I congratulate the ministry in bringing it in 
so that we will have it before this session is 
complete in the next several weeks, and that 
the summer months will not be lost, other- 
wise, to the provision of a location here or 
there across the province which would be 
irretrievably lost without this legislation per- 
haps being available to assist them. 

Mr. Grande: I'm happy to rise and speak 
for a short time on Bill 71, An Act to amend 
the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974. I do agree 
with the speaker from the government side 
and the Liberal member who stood up to 
speak on this particular bill that this bill 
strengthens the designation of a particular 
heritage building. The designation is very 
limited. It will only go on for 270 days and 
after that particular time the heritage build^ 
ing can be demolished or altered. 

If the municipality or the Ontario Heritage 
Foundation is able to get involved in a volun- 
tary agreement with the owner of a particular 
heritage building, then the easement or the 
covenant that is produced is much more last- 
ing and will be there forever. In that parti- 
cular sense, this bill is a good thing. As a 
matter of fact, I have recommended to my 
colleagues that we would be supporting this 
bill on second reading. 

However, there are two particular princi- 
ples which the previous speaker mentioned 
in this bill. One principle is that if the Ontario 
Heritage Foundation has entered iato an 



MAY 31, 1979 



2435 



easement or covenant with an owner, then 
the designation provisions of sections 33 and 
34 of the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974, no 
longer apply so that a particular municipality 
does not have the need to designate that par- 
ticular buildling because that building is 
already protected. 

However, as I understand it, the munici- 
pality still has the opportunity to designate 
buildings on which the Ontario Heritage 
Foundation does not hold an easement or a 
covenant with an owner. Therefore, in a 
sense, we're talking about 20 to 23 buildings 
on which the Ontario Heritage Foundation 
holds an easement at this particular time and, 
I understand, in about 10 of them right now 
that is being transacted with owners. We're 
really talking about a very minuscule number 
of heritage buildings in this province when 
we talk about easements that the Ontario 
Heritage Foundation has at this particular 
time. 

[8:30] 

The first principle is, if there is an easement 
between the Ontario Heritage Foundation 
and an owner, then the designation is no 
longer valid. The municipality no longer 
needs to designate, and that's that. If there 
is no easement, the municipality still has the 
power under section 34 of the Heritage Act, 
1974, to so designate. 

However, it is a limited power, as I stated 
earlier, because if an owner is intent upon 
destroying that particular historical building, 
then what happens is after the 270 days the 
municipality has the option of either expro- 
priating the land or else the bulldozer comes 
in. 

There is still nothing in this present act or 
in the Ontario Heritage Act, 1974, to protect 
a particular building which the local com- 
munity or the province, through the Ontario 
Heritage Foundation, considers to be im- 
portant to the heritage of this province. There 
is nothing that can be done about it. There is 
no clause in the legislation to protect that 
building. 

The second principle is that finally, five 
years after 1974, we have the amendment. 
I understand at that particular time the prov- 
ince was under the impression the munici- 
pality had the power to enter into easements 
or covenants with owners of heritage build- 
ings. It took the Minister of Culture and 
Recreation five years to bring these amendi- 
ments, when in 1975 and 1976 municipalities 
were already telling the minister and the 
ministry they legally did not have that power. 
Five years later, we have the amendment. 
Thank you very much. It could have been five 
years from now, so let's thank our lucky stars. 



What this particular section does is give the 
municipality the power to enter into an ease- 
ment, but at the same time, it unloads on to 
the municipality the financial burden of pay- 
ing the cost of that particular easement. 

The previous speaker made mention of the 
fact that an owner, if he has a heritage prop- 
erty, wants some kind of incentive. Why 
should an owner, after all, maintain a parti- 
cular property, whether it is heritage or not, 
if the land upon which the building is situated 
can cost a tremendous amount of money and' 
an apartment building can be erected on that 
site? Why should an owner maintain it as a 
heritage property? 

Therefore, what the heritage foundation 
has done in the past is it has provided incen- 
tives. Ten to 15 per cent of the value of the 
property has been mentioned. I understand 
there is another incentive which could be 
provided but it hasn't been used up to this 
particular time, and that is to give the owner 
an income tax incentive, that is from the time 
the easement is signed with the Ontario 
Heritage Foundation, for all intents and pur- 
poses, that particular property and land is 
frozen. 

So in essence, what can be done is to say 
if the building and the land costs this much 
today, we will give you as an income tax 
deduction the difference between the value, 
the cost of the land to the building now and 
the time of entering into an easement with 
the property. 

Those two particular tools can be used. 
As I said, the former has been used more 
readily by the Ontario Heritage Foundlation 
and the latter has not yet been used, but 
perhaps will. 

I want him to think of a municipality that 
does not have a property tax base. I am in 
agreement with this bill and we will support 
it. But as a result of this change of legislation, 
the responsibility now is going to be on that 
municipality to preserve that local heritage 
building. 

In other words, the local autonomy issue 
is a double-edged knife. On one hand it 
would be good for the municipality to have 
the power to decide what to do with that 
particular land. On the other hand that power 
costs money, at least in terms of the 10 or 15 
per cent it would have to give to an owner 
to entice him to enter into an agreement. 
What if the municipality does not have the 
flexibility the provincial government has? 
What happens to that heritage property? 

I suspect the municipality, if they cannnot 
enter into an easement agreement with the 
owner, can designate the property. But as we 
suggested earlier, after 270 days, the game 



2436 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



is over. What I want is some assurance here 
tonight that the Ontario Heritage Foundation 
and the provincial government, where a mu- 
nicipality cannot afford to provide incentives 
to an owner to enter into an easement agree- 
ment, will go some way to provide financial 
assistance to that municipality. 

As far as I am concerned, that is the only 
drawback in this legislation. On paper it looks 
good, but when a municipality attempts to 
apply it, it is not so good. It might find the 
funds are not there to provide the incentives 
to the porperty owners. Then unless the 
government or the Ontario Heritage Founda- 
tion steps in with some money — some formula 
should be devised as far as I'm concerned' — 
that property even though it has tremendous 
significance to the local municipality, will fall 
to the bulldozer. The bulldozer v^dll wipe it 
off of the map. 

I know some of the people on the board 
of governors of the Ontario Heritage Founda- 
tion and those people definitely would never 
allow anything like that to take place. They 
really have at heart the preservation of the 
heritage of this province. However, I would 
not want the govemmment to get out of the 
picture by saying to the municipality: "you 
have the legislation, you have the local auto- 
nomy, you deal with your problem. And' if 
we're going to come some way to help you 
with the problem, it is a favour we are doing 
your municipality." 

I would not want the government to take 
that attitude at all, because I don't think the 
government does anybody a favour in pro- 
tecting the heritage of this province. As far 
as I am concerned, the responsibility lies with 
the provincial government to protect that 
heritage. 

Even (though I appreciate the local auton- 
omy issue, nonetheless, there are many things 
in the field of culture and recreation that are 
a responsibility of the government of On- 
tario for the protection and preservation of 
the heritage of this province and, frankly, for 
the encouragement of the arts in this prov- 
ince. The government would not give that 
power to the local municipalities to encour- 
age the arts, would it? We will ndt get the 
Ontario Arts Council in each municipality in 
this province. As I have said, I agree with 
the legislation. But I have some doubts. I 
hope the member for Armourdale will put 
some of those doubts to rest. Even if he does 
not, I believe this legislation is important 
enough that it should go through. But I am 
sure the member and the Minister of Culture 
and Recreation both know that they will 
hear from me in a year or a year and a half 
from now; they can rest assured of that. 



I think I have mentioned everything in 
terms of this legislation except one thing; 
that is, the property owner which has been 
the most consistent destroyer of the heritage 
of this province is the government of Ontario 
itself, through the Ministry of Government 
Services. The Ministry of Government Serv- 
ices has some responsibility for all the build- 
ings owned by the government of this prov- 
ince, and the record of that ministry in 
protecting the heritage of this province has 
been, to say the least, dismal— at least, in 
the last two episodes in w*hich I have had 
some involvement it 'has been dismal. I am 
glad the Minister of Consumer and Com- 
mercial Relaitions is here, because he was the 
one who said the building has got to go. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: The Don Jail, yes. You're 
a resident of the Don Jail? I can see why you 
would be unhappy. And it will come down, 
my friend— right into rubble. 

Mr. Grande. Mr. Speaker, I am talking 
about the heritage of diis province; I am 
not talking about the emotionalism of the 
moment that could be garnered in one's 
favour. 

Hon. Mr. Drea: You'd preserve an old 
jail? 

Mr. Grande: However, let us leave the 
minister to rest where he is. He is capable 
of creating other problems and doing other 
things th^t will not sit well with this province. 
Let me say that two years ago the Minister 
of Culture and Recreation at that time, the 
member for— 

Hon. Mr. Drea: Brock. 
Mr. Grande: Brock. 
Hon. Mr. Drea: The Deputy Premier. 
Mr. Grande: Yes, indeed. Two years ago, 
the minister made a commitment during con- 
sideration of those estimates that an inventory 
of all the buildings owned by the province 
of Ontario was going to be made. This par- 
ticular list was going to be made public so 
that a municipality would not have to go 
the route of designation and feasibility studies, 
and the Ontario Heritage Foundation would 
not have to order a feasibility study and 
spend thousands of dollars before the min- 
ister of the day decided thalt a building should 
not be protected, even though the recom- 
mendation from both of these bodies was that 
it should be protected. 

I would urge Ithe Minister of Culture and 
Recreation to come through with that in- 
ventory, to come through with that list, so 
that we know which buildings the Minister of 
Government Services, the Minister of Culture 
and Recreation and, indeed, the government 



MAY 31, 1979 



2437 



considers to be important to the heritage of 
ithe province. 

The other point, of course, is that the 
province, through the Minister of Culture 
and Recreation, should also be talking to the 
federal government, because some of tihe 
federal buildings should be kept since they 
are part of the heritage of this province. As 
of now, I understand that no such agreement 
has been reached. As a matter of fact, I 
do not know to what extent any talks are 
going on. 

[8:45] 

Let me sum up by saying that this legisla- 
tion is obviously better than what was in the 
Ontario Heritage Adt, 1974. It has been in 
the making for five years; it is finally here. 
This party is glad to supjwrt it, but I would 
like some comment from the government in 
terms of the assurances to the municipalities 
that, if they do not have the finances with 
which to enter into an easement agreement, 
the province or the Ontario Heritage Foun- 
dation will go a long way to satisfy that need. 

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like 
to address myself to Bill 71, the Ontario 
Heritage Amendlment Act. The purpose of the 
bill is to allow municipalities to make ease- 
ment agreements with property owners for 
the purpose of protecting buildings of local 
historical interest. The Ontario Heritage 
Foundation will still act to protect structures 
of regional or provincial interest and will be 
empowered to make easement agreements 
when necessary. 

As iwevious members mentioned, tliis per- 
haps narrows it down a little too much, such 
that the interest of the province will be in 
such things as regional matters and provincial 
interests— one can think of historic regional 
buildings such as the old county courthouses, 
and perhaps regional jails and buildings of 
that nature— but nothing that actually relates 
to the jurisdiction that will fall upon munici- 
palities under the amendments to this par- 
ticular act. 

Also, the bill is meant to improve the 
present situation, where municipalities do not 
have any authority to protect a historic prop- 
erty after the 270-day official designation 
period. The 270-day period is useful as a 
stalling tactic against intermediate or indis- 
criminate alteration or demolition by owners. 
As well, the delay provides time in which 
the commimity can participate in the final 
dtjcision. 

I am not quite clear about what the ex- 
planatory notes mean when they say: "Section 
1. Subsection 4 of section 22 is enacted' to 
ensure that the provision of any easement 



agreement or covenant that is held by the 
Ontario Heritage Foundation with respect 
to a heritage building will prevail over the 
alteration and demolition provisions of part 
IV or the act where the building has also 
been designated by the council of a munici- 
pality pursuant to the provisions of part IV 
of the act." 

As a member of the procedural affairs com- 
mittee, I think we run into some areas of 
concern in this particular area. I would like 
to read into the record portions of the Comay 
reports because there still seem to be con- 
flicting jurisdictions in this particular area as 
it relates to the Ontario Heritage Act. 

"Municipal councils can withhold demoli- 
tion permits for designated buildings of 
architectural or historic significance for a 
period of 270 days under the provisions of the 
Ontario Heritage Act. Municipalities also 
have a right under the Planning Act to with- 
hold demolition permits for any residential 
buildings until the owner has secured a new 
building permit for the property. The ques- 
tion has been raised whether the demolition 
control provisions of the Planning Act should 
apply to designated historic buildings as well." 

It goes on to say: 

"The two different kinds of controls are 
now being provided for two essentially dif- 
ferent kinds of situations. The procedures for 
historic buildings are designed, at least in 
part, to give the municipahty an opportunity 
to carry out negotiations with the owners so 
as to fbid a way of maintaining the building 
in an appropriate use while preserving its 
distinctive character. We have recommended 
si)ecific changes that should assist municipali- 
ties for this purpose: improvements in the 
use of incentive zoning and holding bylaws 
(in chapter 11) and provision for the acquisi- 
tion of development rights (in chapter 15)." 

I suppose, under the section that deals with 
easements, what this actually does is give 
municipalities the right to control through 
easements. That is what it does. But that has 
always been under the act, where the Ontario 
Heritage Foundation had that power and 
authority to deal with it too. This does away 
with the mind boggle of the old common-law 
easement; I think that is the intent of the 
section. 

To continue with the Comay report: 
'Demolition control for residential structures 
is designed mainly to forestall the premature 
destruction of residential housing stock. Pro- 
visions of the act do not allow municipalities 
to prevent demolition indefinitely, but only 
as long as the owner cannot make another 
legal use of the property. 



2438 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



"As soon as he is able to secure a building 
permit, a demolition permit must be granted." 
The final paragraph reads: "The problem 
with historic or architecturally significant 
buildings is that in many cases the owner can 
in fact make another legal use of the property 
if the Planning Act provisions were applied/' 
That is still going to be applied, if the owner 
wants to do it, if you don't obtain an ease- 
ment. 

"Municipalities would in many cases lose 
the valuable protection aflForded by the 270- 
day provisions of the Ontario Heritage Act, 
since demolition would be legally possible. 
We believe that on balance it is more impor- 
tant that municipalities have the assured 
benefit of the 270-day waiting period, plus 
the availability of special zoning provisions 
and development rights acquisition that we 
have proposed, than simply the security of 
being able to withhold a demolition permit 
imtil a building permit has been secured." 

The report goes on to say, "We are, there- 
fore, unable to recommend that the demoli- 
tion control provisions of the Planning Act be 
applied to designated historic or architec- 
turally significant buildings under the Ontario 
Heritage Act." 

That still leaves a question in my mind as 
to whether this bill will provide safety meas- 
ures — that council will have the authority to 
preserve historic buildings. This easement 
isn't going to provide that. If you don't get 
the easements, the agreement is not going 
to be there. It has to be agreed upon. I would 
like to get clarification on that; it just does 
not provide the controls a municipality must 
have if it is going to have some control over 
historic buildings. 

I believe that under the act the Ontario 
Heritage Foundation does have control, but 
once this passes on to local governments, and 
we talk about local autonomy, I think this 
may cause some problems with additional 
legal costs. Perhaps the minister should be 
taking a close look at this. 

The other matter I am concerned about is 
the phrase in section 2 of the bill, "local 
advisory committee, where one is established." 
I suppose it shouldn't be a matter of "where 
one is established," but "shall be established." 
I don't think municipal councils have enough 
time today to deal with the preservation of 
historic buildings in their communities; I 
think their work load now is rather heavy. To 
add more to it might cause some oversight 
and an important historic building might be 
demolished. I suggest that is an area that 
should be looked at. 

I don't think we should lose sight also of 
the fact that there are about four different 



agencies involved in this bill and that should 
be mentioned. There is the federal govern- 
ment's Heritage Canada; there is the Parks 
Canada assistance; at the provincial level 
there is the Ontario Heritage Foundation; 
then there is the municipal level; and, finally, 
we have the private sector. All are involved 
in this area. In view of this, I should think it 
almost compulsory that a local advisory com- 
mittee be established. 

These are some of the points I am con- 
cerned about in this bill. As my colleague 
has said, we support this bill in principle, but 
I am afraid it doesn't go quite far enough to 
provide protection for some of these historic 
buildings or sites. 

This year the Niagara Peninsula, and parti- 
cularly the city of Port Colbome, are cele- 
brating the 105th anniversary of the building 
of the Welland Canal. There are some historic 
sites located in Port Colbome which relate to 
the second and third canals. Parts of the old 
locks are still there, as well as the control 
weir. These should, perhaps, be preserved 
for generations to come, as examples of what 
was quite an engineering feat for the time. 
There's the old feeder canal that was part of 
the original Welland Canal that is located in 
Moulton-Sherbrooke township — the town of 
Dunnville now — and Wainfleet township. It's 
of a rather historic nature and it's a beautiful 
little waterway that should be preserved for 
generations to come. For some unknown rea- 
son, we've let this slip. I hope this year, with 
the celebrating of this great event, considera- 
tion by the Ontario Heritage Foundation and 
other government agencies and even the pri- 
vate sector which is involved at the present 
time, they will get all the help they need to 
preserve this waterway. 

I am still not quite clear as to the intent of 
the bill. As I undter stand it, there is legislation 
there now and all this does is just remove it 
from the authority and jurisdiction of the 
Ontario Heritage Foundation and give it to 
local municipalities. I'm afraid there may be 
additional costs involved there and perhaps 
some of the grant money can be passed on to 
the municipalities that want to be involved 
in this program. 

I think it's a good program and I do sup- 
port it. 

Mr. Lawlw: Just two points, Mr. Speaker. 
First, in general terms, the Ontario Heritage 
Foundation can be— and I warned the govern- 
ment with respect to this point; I have never 
done it before in the Legislature— subject to 
very great abuse. The tax concessions with 
respect to the turning over of so-called an- 
tiques, artefactums of various kinds, at an 
inflated value is a trick of the rich to escape 



MAY 31, 1979 



2439 



the responsibility. Those who do the assessing 
aren't particularly meiticulous about what 
figures they use. In order to acquire the prop- 
erty in the name of the province, whatever 
it might be, they are rather indulgent towards 
the price placed by Ithe owner, l3ie entrepre- 
neur, whoever he might be. It's the rich who 
do this in any e\'ent, and in order to escape 
the tax consequences, they value the thing 
very high. Some day an investigation is going 
to have to be made of ithat whole business 
because I've had some reference to this land 
of manipulation going on. 

The other thing is a pure legal point. Of 
course, on all legal points in this House I 
address the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams). 
How can there be an easement without either 
a dominant or a servient tenement? These 
things all go together and it's part of English 
law. Maybe he could correct me on it, maybe 
I'm wrong. At the very best he's talking about 
a covenant but all the way through and on 
the documentation he has given out on this, 
it is constantly referred to as an easement. 

In other words, the front wall, the facade, 
of the building has some historic interesit, et 
cetera, and you acquire some kind of rights 
over it. That right, I put it to you, is not 
an easement by any designation known to 
English common law or otherwise. Why do 
they designate it as such? The government 
owns no other property in the vicinity and 
in order to acquire an easement, you have 
to own the property immediately adjacent 
thereto. 

I rather suspect that on that basis someone 
could attack, at a subsequent date, many of 
the agreements they are drawing up as being 
maldesignated, as not having the force and 
effect, and certainly not the terminological 
designation they have made of it, and i)os- 
sibly invalidate the whole principle. 

I don't want to speak at any great length 
on the matter. I just bring those two points 
to their attention and leave them alone. 

Mr. Acting Speaker: Is there any other 
member wishing to speak to this bill? If not, 
the parliamentary assistant in reply. 

Mr. McCaffrey: First I would like to ask 
you for some advice. Is this called the com- 
mittee of the whole House or where are we? 

Mr. Acting Speaker: No, not yet. 

Mr. McCaffrey: At what point is it and 
who diecides? 

Mr. Acting Speaker: I am sorry, at what 
point do we do what? 

Mr. McCaffrey: When do we go into the 
committee of the whole House? 
[9:00] 



Mr. Acting Speaker: After your reply we 
will see whether it passes second reading or 
not. I'm asking you to make some reply. 

Mr. McCaffrey: Terrific. I'm just wresltling 
with the member for Lakeshore's 17th cen- 
tury definition of an easement. In the mean- 
time I wanted to find out just exactly where 
we were. 

iLet me work backwards and try to answer 
a couple of the questions- 
Mr. Lawlor: It sounds very good. You're 
probably more at home working backwards. 
Mr. McCaffrey: —raised by the member for 
Oakwood and the soak-the-rich member for 
Lakeshore. 

The member for Erie sp>ecifioally asked 
about the inltent of the bill and it's worth 
touching on. It also alludes to some of the 
comments raised by the member for Oak- 
wood. "Easements," in the definition used 
by those in the Ontario Heritage Foundation 
since 1974, at least, have in 24 instances been 
used to have some rights over certain build- 
ings in the province to preserve them for 
historical, architectural purposes, et cetera. 

Mr. Lawlor: Your taste is very bad. 

Mr. McCaffrey: The intent of the bill was 
to give municipalities the same opportunity to 
write easements to enter into those kind's of 
agreements. I think it's fundamental to point 
out that these are voluntary contracts entered 
into by the owner or owners of a particular 
building and, in this instance, the Ontario 
Heritage Foundation, and subsequent to the 
passage of this amendment, the municipality. 
That clearly is the intent of the bill — to give 
what has been since 1974 a useful and im- 
portant tool used by the foundation to the 
municipalities as well. 

The member for Oakwood — and I can 
understand this — wants some assurance from 
other than the good people who make up the 
board of directors of the Ontario Heritage 
Foundation that this is not really some kind 
of a device to thrust additional costs on the 
municipalities — if that's a fair interpretation. 
I asked that question myself. 

Let me just backtrack and try to answer 
two things at the same time. My understand- 
ing is that in the half a dozen or so matters 
which prompted this amendment, where mu- 
nicipalities want to enter into their own 
easement agreements with owners, in every 
instance the money involved has already been 
promised by the Ontario Heritage Founda- 
tion. One specific one is the property, 187 
King Street East, in Toronto. The foundation 
has already offered a $25,000 grant. 

The municipality, in particular the legal 
department of the city of Toronto, did re- 



2440 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



quest, I think in 1978, that the act be 
amended in order that they could enter into 
this agreement. 

I don't see in that instance, and in the half 
a dozen I have in front of me, that it's a 
question of the local municipality having to 
put up any additional money or any money 
at all. It's still money coming from the 
Ontario Heritage Foundation. But they will 
be able to enter into the agreement. 

Mr. Grande: Are you sure about that? 

Mr. McCaflFrey: I'm sure that's so for the 
ones I have in front of me. 

Let's just jump ahead. Following the pas- 
sage of this amendment might there be an 
instance where the municipality^ which can 
now write its own agreement, has to come up 
with what seems to be a useful yardstick— 
the 10 per cent or 15 per cent of the market 
value of that particular building? Will the 
Ontario Heritage Foundation — I ask myself 
this — turn a deaf ear to that municipality's 
request for financial help? I doubt it. 

Mr. Grande: This government has always 
turned a deaf ear to the municipalities. 

Mr. McCaflFrey: I doubt it, because of the 
24 properties heW already by the foundation, 
those easement agreements already held, who 
was the initiator of it? It was a combination 
of people and various historical boards in the 
municipalities and representatives on the 
foundation board of directors who together 
wanted to preserve some of these specific 
properties. 

Mr. Grande: Do you know how this govern- 
ment treats school boards and municipalities? 

Mr. McCaflFrey: There is 36 years of faith 
standing here in front of you. You want more 
assurances than the past 36 years? Trust me. 

Mr. Lawlor: Thirty-six years of disillusion- 
ment. 

Mr. McCaflFrey: The member for Oakwood 
also raised an important question regarding 
the clarification of what appeared to be two 
parallel contracts; the local designation which 
the municipalities enter into when they desig- 
nate a building and the municipalities' pas- 
sage of this new ability to write their own 
easement. 

You probably have the existing act there, 
Mr. Speaker. May I read one part of it? On 
page nine, section 29(4)(b) subsection 4 says: 
"Notice of intention to designate under sec- 
tion 1 shall contain . . ." and subsection (b) 
says "a statement of the reason for the pro- 
posed designation . . ." As I perceive the 
municipal easement agreement, it will look 
not unlike that example we've got. The rea- 
sons for the easement agreement will be as 



specific as, likely more specific than, any 
reasons for the designation they would have 
to itemize. 

That was not the member's point? 

Mr. Grande: No, it's exactly the same thing 
except that the easement continues for a long 
time. 

Mr. McCaflFrey: The fact that the designa- 
tion has a termination time of 270 d^ays is 
perceived by me at least as being a potential 
weakness. The easement agreement is strong- 
er. The second part of the amendment we're 
adding is that when the two are in place, one 
has to prevail and that the municipal ease- 
ment agreement should prevail over any 
existing designation. That's no problem. 

Mr. Grande: I think you're a bit confused 
but that's okay. 

Mr. McCaflFrey: Does the member want to 
ask the question again? 

Mr. Grande: Maybe. 

Mr. Acting Speaker: It might be more 
proper if that discussion went on when you're 
looking at the particular section in committee. 

Mr. McCaflFrey: I don't think there is any- 
thing terribly specific to which I wanted to 
respond. The original speaker, the member for 
Kitchener, asked tdie question about inven- 
tory. Is there now such an inventory of gov- 
ernment buildings, including this? The mem- 
ber for Oakwood asked about fedteral govern- 
ment buildings and what is being done now. 
My understanding is that such an inventory 
is now being prepared^ I assume by the 
Ontario Heritage Foundaltion. I dbn't know 
what state it's in, quite frankly, but my under- 
standing is that such an inventory of build- 
ings of that type is now being prepared. 

Mr. Grande: It will take five years to 
hatch this. 

Mr. McCaflFrey: I don't think it's a question 
of five years. A very specific request came to 
the minister in 1978 from the legal people in 
the city of Toronto. Up until Ithat time, there 
had been an understanding within the Min- 
istry of Culture and Recreation that munici- 
palities could enter into those lands of agree- 
menJts. Those municipalities and Toronto was 
the first illustration, felt the present act did 
not permit it. The amendment was drafted 
in a more recent time period and we're all 
supx>ortive of that. I don't have anything 
further to say at this time, Mr. Speaker. 

Mr. Lawlor: You sure put a bland face on 
the matter. 

Motion agreed to. 

Third reading also agreed to on motion. 



MAY 31, 1979 



2441 



RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS' 
LANDS ACT 

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. 
McMurtry, moved second reading of Bill 93, 
An Adt to provide for the holding of Land by 
Religious Organizations. 

Mr. Lawlor: Shades of Henry VIII. 

Mr. McCaffrey: Now the sinister part. 

Mr. Steriing: In response to an Ontario 
Law Reform Commission report on mortmain, 
charitable uses and religious institutions, the 
Attorney General (Mr. McMurttry) has intro- 
duced Bills 93 and 94 to update this very old 
legislation to take into account modem-day 
needs. It is important in several minor ways 
to take care of various problems tfiatt have 
existed in the holding and transferring of 
organizations that were not formerly covered 
by the former act. 

In addition, this bill extends a convenience 
that was formerly enjoyed only by Christian 
and Jewish religions to several other recog- 
nizable religions whidi have now been recog- 
nized in Ontario as being of much conse- 
quence. It also expands the meaning of the 
religious organization in a general way to 
many other religious organizations which are 
not specifically mentioned in tiie bill. 

It is in effect a housekeeping bill. I say 
that with some reluctance because sometimes 
that raises more suspicions than anything 
else, but in fact it is. 

Mr. Warner: Right. 

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am rather 
surprised to be called upon to speak on this 
particular bill rather suddenly. However, the 
explanation tiiat has been given by the parlia- 
mentary assistant is an interesting one. I 
suppose the House could debate for some 
time the reason one bill deals with religious 
organizations and the next bill deals with the 
Anglican church. I would have thought the 
House had come to some conclusion, as a 
result, that the Anghcan church isn't a religi- 
ous organization. Being a Lutheran, I am 
well aware of the old saw that says one is 
either a Roman Catholic or a Lutheran or 
belongs to one of the sects. In this case pre- 
sumably the Anghcans, unfortunately, are 
beyond the pale, at least so far as this bill 
is concerned. 

In all seriousness, the parliamentary assist- 
ant has clearly set out the fact that there are 
now a variety of other rehgious groups beyond 
the traditional Christian and Jewish congre- 
gations within the province. They have come 
and developed witfiin Ontario as a further 
development of the multicultural mosaic 
which we have in Ontario and in Canada. 



It is important that these groups with dif- 
ferent means of guidance and leadership 
within their own organizations have the op- 
portunity to acquire property and attend to 
the things the law imposes and requires in a 
proper and consistent manner. In the ordinary 
congregation, with which most of us are fami- 
liar, a church board or the operation of the 
ownership residing in an episcopalian corpora- 
tion or in a bishop is the traditional thing to 
which most of us are used. But these are 
circumstances that now require changes. 

I welcome the explanation which the parlia- 
mentary assistant has given. I don't know 
whether it is his intention to have this bill 
go to committee if there are any particulars 
which he wishes to further discuss. I will 
certainly accept his comments witih respect to 
the support given by the Ontario Law Reform 
Commission. I hope the bill, as introduced, 
will resolve the concerns of other groups so 
that they can hold title to properties in ac- 
cordance with their needs in a proper and 
consistent manner. 
[9:15] 

Mr. Warner: I appreciate the opportunity 
to enter into this debate. I know the Speaker 
is aware that this bill emanates from a long 
series of similar acts of the Legislature in 
Ontario and, prior to that, in England. 

I think, as a starting point, we should 
refresh our memory of the comments made 
by the Ontario Law Reform Commission in 
its report of 1976 when it stated that the 
research for this reference, meaning the need 
for reform, has demonstrated that many of 
the laws in these areas have accumulated 
over the centuries, some of them dating back 
to feudal times and beyond, and have con- 
tributed to what once was described with 
reference to land law generally as "a rubbish 
heap which no one except professors in law 
schools understands"— rather, with the impli- 
cation that even the professors do not 
thoroughly understand them or all understand 
them the same way. 

That's the place where we're begiiming, 
along with the comment of the law reform 
commission that there was a need for some 
reform and this bill is one small part of the 
reform which the Law Reform Commission 
was taUcing about. 

Mr. Lawlor: That gave Allan Leal a chance 
to confess his own ignorance. 

Mr. Warner: The roots of this bill go back 
and some would trace it, as my colleague Mr. 
Sterhng i)erhaps would remark, prior to 
Christ. I don't know whether he has traced 
it back that far, but I have traced it back to 
at least Henry I and to 1100. 



2442 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Mr. Samis: I thought he traced it back to 
Don Irvine. 

Mr. Warner: Certainly what is interesting 
to me is that even in 1100 A.D. it's noted 
that the records of the city of London, Eng- 
land, "comprise of charters granted by the 
kings as far back as the tune of Henry I 
conceding to t!he citizens the right to have 
actions for lands decided according to their 
own laws." Then, of course, later on there was 
the charter of King John, which the chair 
would be familiar with, and later charters 
that stated precisely that the privilege be ex- 
tended to lands witiiin the city of London, 
England. 

Of course from there, from 1100 and later, 
the charter of King John, we find that the 
Great Charter— that being the Magna Carta, 
in 1215— talks in several parts about the city 
of London, because that's the place where 
the rights were first developed. Section 9 of 
tfhe charter says: "L-et the city of London 
have all its ancient liberties and customs." Of 
course one of the customs was that land 
could be set aside, apart from the fiefdom 
aspect of land, and could be held, in some 
cases for religious purposes. 

Beyond that, we find references in sections 
32 and 36 of the Great Charter. Section 32 
forbids "any freeman to alienate so much of 
his land as wiU render the residue insufficient 
to secure the services due to the lord." Sec- 
tion 36 fofbids a dodge whereby a tenant 
gave land to a religious house and t^hereby 
got it discharged from all services and then 
received it back again. What happened, of 
course, was that the development of both 
mortmain and charitable uses reflected a con- 
cern that the church was abusing the privilege 
of having lands and how it would dispose of 
those lands. If I imderstand the history cor- 
rectly, that's how the Charitable Uses Act 
developed. 

Beyond 1215, of course, there was a refine- 
ment in 1225 of the Great Charter and then, 
in 1279, what is called the mortmain de 
religioses. 

Mr. Samis: Let's hear it for themi 
Mr. Warner: Which again-and you must 
be patient here for a moment; how could I 
lose that reference? Okay; that was 1279. In 
1392 there was the Mortmain Act; followed 
in 1535 by the Statute of Uses; and in 1601 
by the Charitable Uses Act. 

Of course that legislation, which is com- 
monly known as the statute of Elizabeth I, 
is really what I would think is a turning 
point in that it sets out some criteria for 
charitable uses. It is interesting to note, Mr. 
Speaker, as you realize, that the preamble to 



that statute provided the basis, and if I 
understand it properly still provides the 
basis, for this act tonight. That preamble 
reads: 

". . . the Relief of the aged, impotent and 
poor People, some for Maintenance of 
sick and maimed Soldiers and Mariners, 
Schools of Learning, Free Schools and 
Scholars of Universities, some for Repair of 
Bridges, Ports, Havens, Causeways, Churches, 
Sea-Banks and Highways, some for Education 
and Preferment of Orphans, some for or to- 
wards Relief, Stock or Maintenance of Houses 
of Correction, some for Marriages of poor 
Maids, some for supportation. Aid and Help 
with young Tradesmen, Handicraftsmen and 
Persons decayed, others for the Relief or 
Redemption of Prisoners or Captives and the 
Aid or Ease of any poor inhabitants concern- 
ing payment of Fifteens setting out of soldiers 
and other taxes. . . ." 

That provided the basis for the further de- 
velopments which result in our having this 
bill today. I am sure the Attorney General is 
well aware he is simply following the line of 
what had been set out by Elizabeth I. 

What is interesting is that it did not pro- 
vide for the courts the opportunity to be 
definitive about the churches, because in the 
statute of Elizabeth I they talked about the 
maintenance of churches. It was restrictive. 
Much later on, in 1805, Sir Samuel Romilly 
had to develop what he called the four heads 
of charity. That was later altered by Lord 
McNaughton. His classification is very inter- 
esting because he still has foiur, but he talks 
about the relief of poverty, the advancement 
of education, the advancement of religion and 
other purposes beneficial to the community 
not falling under any of the preceding heads. 

I want to zero in on the advancement of 
religion. He makes the distinction, because 
the advancement of religion is a more en- 
compassing term than what had come prior 
to that. It is interesting to note that beyond 
that interpretation of the court was that the 
advancement of religion is a very broad term. 
Hang on just a second here. 

Mr. Breithaupt: This is great for those who 
haven't been to law school. 

Mr. Acting Speaker: While the honourable 
member is looking for that reference, I might 
draw the House's attention to the presence 
in the Speaker's gallery of a former minister 
of the crown, his wife, and I presume his 
grandson. They are here on this occasion to 
see this religious biU going through tonight. 
I refer, of course, to Allan Grossman. 

Applause. 



MAY 31, 1979 



2443 



Mr. Warner: The argument that is put for- 
ward is that the court cannot place one re- 
ligion above any other. That decision is a 
breakthrough in terms of religious freedoms. 
"Purposes conducive to the advancement of 
religion" is one of the terms that is used. 

"The law of England has always shown 
favour to gifts for religious purposes. It does 
not now, in this matter, prefer one religion to 
another. It assumes that it is good for man to 
have and practise a religion. But where a 
particular belief is accepted by one religion 
and rejected by another, the law can neither 
accept nor reject it. The law must accept the 
position that it is right that different religions 
should each be supported, irrespective of 
whether or not all its beliefs are true. A 
religion can be regarded as beneficial without 
it being necessary to assume that all its beliefs 
are true, and a religious service can be re- 
garded as beneficial to all those who attend 
it without it being necessary to determine the 
spiritual eflBcacy of that service or to accept 
any particular belief about it." 

As I mentioned, that decision, which was 
in the Gilmore versus CJoates case, provides a 
basis for some of the religious freedoms that 
we have. That brings me to one of the ques- 
tions I hope the parliamentary assistant can 
respond to, because in his definition section of 
the bill the broadest term used is "Christian." 
I would want to know whether or not that 
includes the Church of Scientology. They are 
not specifically named in the bill. I think that 
what the bill does, if I understand the prin- 
ciple of the bill, is perhaps test some of our 
principles of tolerance of religious diversity. 
Does the bill assure the Church of Scien- 
tology', for example, that it is included in the 
definition in section 1 of the bill? That is one 
question I wanted to pose. 

We could move on from 1805 to 1888, 
which again is a landmark in the develop- 
ment, with the Mortmain and Charitable Uses 
Act setting out another refinement in the 
process. What I wanted to set out for the 
parliamentary assistant was the fact that there 
are various stages through the development, 
including 1888 and 1891; but not until 1960, 
with the Charities Accounting Act, did we 
revamp it again. Then the Ontario Law Re- 
form Commission report brought it completely 
up to date. 

[9:30] 

All of this provides a basis for religious 
institutions to hold land, to retain some clear 
identity and to be able to dispose of the lands 
as they see fit. What's interesting, as I read 
it, is that there is a contradiction between 
what Bill 93 provides and what the Mortmain 
and Charitable Uses Act says. That's sup- 



ported in the law reform commission report. 
There is an interesting section in the report 
about the holding of land by people other 
than Canadians. On page 14 under foreign 
ownership of land, it sets out that there are 
rules for the foreign ownership of land. They 
seem to be fairly clear in theory, namely that 
the holding of religious lands cannot be 
attained by people who are not resident in 
Ontario or in Canada. 

I understand that, but there is no such 
connection in Bill 93. In fact part of the bill 
says that the trustees can determine to sell 
the land or to lease it for 40 years by a vote 
of the trustees. My assumption would be 
that if they decide to dispose of the land or 
to lease it, as guaranteed under Bill 93, they 
would automatically be subject to the Mort- 
main and Charitable Uses Act, which pre- 
cludes foreign ownership except under special 
provisions, that is either by licensing or by 
special provision granted by the Lieutenant 
Governor in Council. That's outlined in the 
Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act. 

I'm making that assumption without any 
guarantee in tnis bill, and that's what I'm con- 
cerned about. In other words, does the bill 
provide an opportunity and is the Attorney 
General opening up inadvertently a loophole 
whereby— obviously not the major religions, 
or we think not the major rehgions— some of 
the minor or smaller sects or groups are able 
by a circuitous route to acquire lands in 
Ontario held in trust and leased out though 
those people who are the principals involved 
are not Canadian citizens and are not resi- 
dent in Canada? 

Secondly, the provision of the 40-year- 
lease opportunity seems to me to be not re- 
stricted to religious purposes but to allow the 
opportunity to develop commercial interests 
on lands which were originally set aside to 
be for religious purposes. I would stress that 
I'm unclear about those points. I am not 
saying the bill does provide the opportunity 
for that, I am simply not clear on it. 

I have attempted to read the bill very 
thoroughly, the report of the law reform 
commission thoroughly and all of the his- 
tory on the matter back to Henry I in 1100 
as clearly and understandably as I can. 

It seems to me the bill may inadvertently 
provide an opportunity which I don't think 
any of us want, that is to allow the holding 
of land by people who are not resident in 
Ontario nor Canadian citizens. Secondly, 
when the land ceases to be used for religious 
purposes it can then be leased for commercial 
purposes. I don't think that's the intent 
either. 



2444 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



I would wonder, then, if the minister 
might comment also upon the possibility of 
introdudng an amendment which would 
stipulate that the trustees of any such hold- 
ings must be Canadian citizens; this would 
be based on a couple of things. 

First of all, I cannot think of either a 
major or a minor religion which does not 
involve Canadians. Secondly, the require- 
ments for Canadian citizenship in terms of 
years is reduced to three; so surely, if we 
are looking at trustees wiho are going to be 
charged with the responsibility of relligious 
holdings, it would be reasonable to expect 
that those people would be Canadian citi- 
zens. Pethaps that is one way of helping to 
guarantee that the lands will be retained in 
Canadian hands and that they will be used 
only for religious purposes and not leased 
out for commercial purposes. 

At this juncture, and realizing that all of 
us who are concerned with the tegislation— 
including the many members who are glued 
to the squawk boxes outside the chamber- 
understand that we have here one small step 
in a chain that goes back to 1100 and ema- 
nates from the Great Charter, among other 
things, which indeed makes it an important 
piece of legislation, and not wanting us to 
make any mistakes on it, perhaps we can 
spend the next few moments going over 
some of the remarks I have made and make 
sure we are not going to make any mistakes 
before 10:30. 

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I am indebted 
to my colleague the member for Scarborough- 
Ellesmere for the outline of the background 
and history of the evolution of the bill that 
is before us this evening, il therefore want 
to comment on only three or four matters 
which I believe merit comment. 

First of all, I want to underline very 
clearly two of the requests my colleague 
made to the parliamentary assistant. The 
first is that it does appear to us to be essen- 
tial that the act provide that trustees be 
Canadian citizens. It seems to me that is not 
only consistent with questions relating to 
the ownership of land by charitable organiza- 
tions, that they should be owned by trustees 
who are Canadian citizens; it is also con- 
sistent with the slow but sure evolution, at 
some point in time, of an adequate govern- 
ment policy with respect to the ownership 
of land in Ontario, and I think now is the 
time to make that provision with respect to 
Canadian citizenship. 

Secondly, I reiterate what my colleague 
said about the fact that charitable institutions 
as such— whether they are foreign or domestic 
is irrelevant— are prohibited now by the 



Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act from 
investing in land in Ontario for investment 
purposes. The point my colleague makes 
about the provision in this act which per- 
mits land to be used, when not being used 
for the specific religious purpose, for invest- 
ment purposes by way of lease for terms up 
to 40 years seems to us to be a significant 
breach of that principle and one which we 
should not tolerated here. 

We recognize, as well as anyone else 
does, that a rel'igious institution no longer 
needing a piece of land would need a turn- 
around time in order to dispose of that prop- 
erty. But I do not think it should be pro- 
vided that there should be a lease provision 
for 40 years and then, in theory, it could be 
reused again for religious purpose and de- 
feat the purpose of the bill by permitting 
that religious institution to hold land in per- 
petuity and in intermittent periods of 40 
years have the opportunity to use it for busi- 
ness investment. I think it is much better to 
require the disposition of that land within 
some particular stated and reasonable period 
of time than to grant that authority with re- 
spect to leasing. 

Those are the two matters which I trust 
the government will give some thought to, as 
we will' between now and the time the bill 
is considered in committee of the whole 
House, to see whether we can devise an ade- 
quate amendment which might have agree- 
ment of the government and my colleagues 
in the Liberal Party. 

I want to welcome the act, Mr. Speaker. 
I suppose it's trite to say it is somewhat 
overdue, but 'I know how welcome it is to 
many of the religious faiths in Metropolitan 
Toronto, and elsewhere in Ontario, particu- 
larly to those in the riding of Riverdale. 
Significant numbers of South Asian people 
in that riding have worked long and hard in 
association with the government to try and 
get this bill before us to extend its provi- 
sions to religious communities such as the 
Hindu community, those adhering to the 
Buddhist faith, those members of the Sikh 
community and others of those South Asian 
communities. In that sense the bill is most 
welcome and a very real restatement and 
reaffirmation in Ontario of a most interesting 
principle, both historically and fundamentally 
to the law of Ontario, which stands consoli- 
dated in 1897 but unrepealed. 

In that respect, I'm indebted to the work 
which the Cintario law reform commission 
did on this bill. It is quite fascinating that 
the principle of equality of rehgions and 
the practice of religion in Ontario is an 
ancient part of the tradition, lit is quite fas- 



MAY 31, 1979 



2445 



cinating that that particular statute, last con- 
solidated in 1897, still remains unrepealed 
but is iiiot included in the revised statutes of 
Ontario; nevertheless, it is the law of Ontario. 

At this point in time, I think it as worth- 
while to quote the recital to that act and 
the enacting provision, which are both still 
in force: 

"Whereas the recognition of legal equality 
among all religious denominations is an ad- 
mitted principle of Colonial legislation, and 
whereas in the state and condition of this 
province to which such principle is peculiarly 
applicable it is desirable that the same 
should receive the sanction of direct legisla- 
tive authority recognizing and declaring the 
same as a fundamental principle of the civil 
policy of the province, therefore Her Maj- 
esty, by and with the advice and consent 
of the Legislative Assembly of the province 
of Ontario, enacts as follows: 

"1. The free exercise and enjoyment of 
religious profession and worship without dis- 
crimination or preference provided the same 
be not made an excuse for acts of licentious- 
ness or a justification of practices inconsistent 
with the peace and safety of the province is, 
by the constitution and laws of this prov- 
ince, assured to all Her Majesty's subjects 
within the same." 

I was rather concerned when the parlia- 
mentary assistant indicated that perhaps this 
was simply a housekeeping bill. In fact, it is 
a modem reaflBrmation of a fundamental prin- 
ciple of the constitution of this province with 
respect to religious freedom, an essential, 
basic and fundamental ingredient of the kind 
of society which we in Ontario, and all mem- 
bers of the House I'm sure, are anxious to 
preserve, enhance, develop and protect. 

This bill, in a very real sense, reaflBrms that 
particular aspect of religious freedom. I woidd 
hope that when the time comes, as it is 
coming very soon now — and I'm glad that 
the legislative counsel of the assembly is here 
— when the time comes to revise the statutes 
of Ontario for 1980, this particular provision 
of the revised statutes of 1897, which remains 
on the statutes of the province of Ontario but 
is not consolidated, would be brought into 
the statute books so that we could be seen 
to reaffirm positively, in the existing statute 
books to which reference is made by so many 
people, this particular and very fundamental 
principle. 

[9:45] 

I think it does not depart too far from the 
principle of the bill, to urge upon the govern- 
ment the importance of considering the other 
portions of the report of the Law Reform 
Commission of 1976 dealing with mortmain 



and charitable uses in religious institutions, 
because that report indicated very clearly the 
fundamental ingredients of the considerations 
that would have to be given with respect to 
the ownership of land in the province of 
Ontario, that we can no longer go along with- 
out a clear and definitive all-embracing policy 
wdth respect to the ownership of land by resi- 
dents of Ontario and by non-residents of 
Ontario, whether they be from elsewhere in 
Canada or from other countries. 

That particular report outlines the neces- 
sary framework in which the government 
could develop the kind of policy which the 
select committee of this assembly on economic 
and cultural nationalism touched upon clearly 
in their report, but which has been ignored 
so long by this government. I think it is 
worthwhile and appropriate that this report 
could be referred to in that context, as I have 
done very briefly. 

I welcomed die bill in the terms that it is 
of such immense importance to so many 
people now in the province of Ontario that 
it is a fundamental step forward, as I know 
we all agree it is. It seems to provide an 
ongoing framework which would mean we 
will not have to amend it to include other 
organizations, because it provides for a method 
of establishing whether or not a religious 
organization will meet the tests which are 
set out in the statutes, even though it is not 
one of the religious organizations which is 
delineated in the inclusive part of the defini- 
tion in the statute. 

It is a good bill. I hope the parliamentary 
assistant will give consideration to the two 
specific concerns we have, particularly the 
concern that the provision in the bill relating 
to trustees should require that trustees oi^ 
these religious institutions should be Canadian 
citizens. 

Mr. Samis: I was so inspired by the history 
lesson given tonight by my colleague, the 
member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. War- 
ner), that I thought I would make two very 
brief comments. 

First, I welcome the bill, for a variety of 
reasons. I want to specifically commend' the 
government in its outline of various religious 
groups to be recognized for including what I 
think is the only indigenous religion in the 
entire list, and that is the Longhouse Indian 
religion, a very important religion in the tra- 
ditions of our particular part of the province. 

I think the ultimate irony of this entire 
debate tonight is that the member for Carle- 
ton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) is the member 
piloting the bill through the Legislature, when 
one considers the traditions in history of the 
southern part of his riding and neighbouring 



2446 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Dundas, and what organization has been para- 
mount in that riding since the inception of 
Upper Canada, I think it is a true indication 
of how Upper Canada has now progressed' to 
the stage where we can recognize not just the 
second religious group but the multiplicity of 
religious groups. I commend the government 
for its initiative. 

Mr. Sterling: I would like to thank the 
members who participated in this debate. I 
would hke to indicate it is true this bill in- 
deed is founded on the principle of religious 
equality, and in fact it still is a bill which 
will give efiFect to that principle. First of all 
I'd like to say to the member for Kitchener. 
I was not aware that he was a member of the 
Lutheran faitth, but I thought I might add that 
my great, great grandfather was the first 
Lutheran minister in Canada. Although I do 
not profess to that faith at this (time, I 
thought that might be of interest to you. 

Mr. Peterson: It's not interesting to him 
at all; he founded the diurch. 

Mr. Sterling: With regard to some of the 
points raised by the member for Scarborough- 
Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) in reference to other 
religions or smaller sects which are not speci- 
fically mentioned in this bill, the definiltion 
section outlines what in fact a religious 
organization is to be defined as. Later in the 
bill there are provisions whereby a religious 
organization or an organization professing 
to be a religious organization can go to 
county court or Supreme Court to determine 
if they do fall within the purview of that 
general definition. So that any particular sedt 
can go to this bill to get recognition and there 
is a practical way for them to determine 
whether or not (they do come under the provi- 
sions of this bill. 

I would i)oint out that this bill is really a 
method of holding land for religious organi- 
zations. Some religious organizations would 
rather hold it through incorporated companies 
and a lot of (the various religions do it that 
way. 

I also wanted to point out there's basically 
a very large difi^erence when you're talking 
about the mortmain issue and you are talking 
about this particular act. 

Mr. Peterson: He doesn't understand what 
mortmain is; he read the word in a book 
today. 

Mr. Sterling: The foreign ownership issue 
is a mortmain issue, it has nothing to do with 
this particular piece of legislation. The mort- 
main act requires a foreign corporation to buy 
a licence in order to either lease or hold land 
or buy land, or it can qualify through having 
an extraprovincial corporation ficence if it 



comes under the Ontario Business Corixyra- 
tions Act. So, that particular legislation is 
designed to take care of the problem of for- 
eign ownership. 

Whether or not the trustees of the organi- 
zation are Canadian citizens or not, quite 
frankly I look at that as being somew^hat ir- 
relevant in connection with this bill. For in- 
stance I cannot see the difFerence between a 
landed immigrant being one of the trustees 
and a Canadian citizen being one of the 
trustees. The land that is held by the trustees 
is held for a charitable purpose, and if the 
land is sold or leased the proceeds must be 
devoted to charitable purposes. Whoever the 
trustee is is not so important as to how the 
trust is held. 

Mr. Renwick: It should be within the jiuris- 
diction of the court. 

Mr. Sterling: The other question that was 
brought up was the right of the religious 
organization to lease land for commercial 
purposes. I know within the communities that 
I represent, there are many churches that are 
leasing part of their building, for instance to 
daycare centres. They do that on a continuing 
basis. I don't think that would fall under the 
purview of the section that it was for a reli- 
gious purpose as such. When you think of 
commercial organizations, when you think of 
commercial uses, it's difiicult to delineate 
between a commercial and a non-commercial 
use. The restriction is when they acquire the 
land, hopefully, or practically, the use of that 
particular land must be in accordance with 
the wishes of the members of that particular 
religious organization, as outlined in section 
6. 

Now, the advantages of this particular act 
are not so all-encompassing that I can see 
anyone wanting to create a religious organi- 
zation to avoid going (through any particular 
matter. As I mentioned before, for a relatively 
minor amount of money they could incorpo- 
rate and be right out of the purview of this 
act in totahty. 

At any rate, I would indicate to the mem- 
ber for Riverdale, too, that the old act which 
this replaces allowed a 21 -year lease provi- 
sion with a renewal period of 21 years, as 
outlined in the law reform and that was basi- 
cally why the 40-year period was picked. 

We intend to amend one section of the 
bill in committee of the whole House. 

Motion agreed to. 

Ordered for committee of the whole House. 

ANGLICAN CHURCH OF CANADA ACT 

Mr. Sterling, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Mc- 
Murltry, moved second reading of Bill 94, An 



1 



MAY 31, 1979 



2447 



Act respecting the Anglican Churdi of 
Canada. 

Mr. Sterling: I would indicate to the 
member for Kitchener that I am not a mem- 
ber of the Anglican church, but at any rate, 
the idea of putting this in the form of a 
public bill is that historically the Anglican 
church had a public act going back into the 
19tli century. The law reform commission 
recommended that we proceed this way to 
implement this legislation, basically in order 
to save the church the cost of bringing in a 
private bill, as the other religions mostly do 
have their own special legislation. That is 
basically the reason for doing it by way of a 
public piece of legislation rather than a 
private bill. 

Mr. Breithaupt: Having dealt with religious 
organizations, it is now a pleasure to turn to 
the Anglican church as some group not 
otherwise included in the previous bill. Pre- 
sumably a branch of the Christian faith, they 
are still worthy of having their own legisla- 
tion and I suppose that is fine. 

I am reminded of the story of an early 
pope w'ho, in viewing some captured persons 
from Great Britain, was told that they were 
Angli— they were from Great Britain. His re- 
sponse was, "Non Angli sed Angeli." Because 
of their fair hair and blue eyes and tlie opin- 
ion that persons had of what angels should 
look like, he felt they were not Angles, but 
rather angels. 

I presume if we update the Latin phrases, 
we are now dealing with what would be the 
response of the pope of the day; "Non Angeli 
sed Anglici." In other words, not angels, but 
Anglicans. 

The end result is that we have this legis- 
lation which reminds us, of course, of the 
strong traditions within the province. The 
Anglican church in Canada has been involved 
with the very fabric of the formation of our 
province. As we look back into the badk- 
gronnd of this legislation and we see refer- 
ences to the effect of legislation passed in 
the third year of the reign of Queen Victoria 
and in the involvement of the Cihurch of 
England in Upper Canada, w'hich, of course, 
existed as a division of our nation from 1841 
to 1867, we can see how the traditions of 
that church have been to hold title to prop- 
erty, particularly with an overview and in- 
volvement of the bishop in a diocese. 

[10:00] 

I note in the second section that the orga- 
nization of ownership of that land continues 
the involvement of the congregation, but 
also the responsibility and authority of the 



bishop, w'hich is the tradition of that church 
and which, of course, is just fine. 

I think it is prudent to have this as a 
piece of public legislation now so that the 
statutes of the province will show an updating 
with respect to the entire series of owner- 
ships of property within the province. I be- 
lieve that bringing forward this bill is indeed 
a prudent thing and it certainly has our 
support. 

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, as you well 
know, the New Democratic Party has sup- 
ported the Anghcan church in the past- 
Mr. Peterson: Anglicans don't vote for 
socialists. 

Mr. Warner: —does support the Anglican 
church today, will continue to support the 
Anglican church tomorrow- 
Mr. Peterson: You support any left wing 
cause. 

Mr. Warner: As the member for Kitchener 

mentioned to me earlier- 
Mr. Peterson: You'll hitch your wagon to 

any minority fringe group. 

Mr. Warner: —this bill is important. I 
certainly recall, as the member for London 
Centre recalls, the young Anglican priest who, 
at the time of his very first sermon, asked 
the bishop, "What shall I preach about?" The 
bishop gave him very wise advice: "You 
should preach about God in about 15 
minutes." 

Mr. Peterson: Is this parliamentary humour? 

Mr. Warner: It will take a while to sink 
in, I am sure. 

We certainly support Bill 93. It is a com- 
panion bill to the one we previously discussed 
and it is certainly worthy of support. 

Mr. Bradley: The member's best speech 
yet. 

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I just want to 
make certain that the member for Kitchener 
understood the reason for a separate bill. The 
Anglican church in Canada stands ever poised 
and ready to be established as the established 
churdh here— 

Mr. Breithaupt: We live in hope. 

Mr. Renwick: —and we wouldn't want to 
have to disentangle it from the other institu- 
tions of religious faith in order that that might 
happen. With the latter-day version of the 
Family Compact in power in Ontario, their 
hopes continue to exist that some day they 
will be so established. 

Mr. Breithaupt: Shades of Bishop Strachan. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let's hear it for the 
Family Compact. 



2448 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



Mr. Renwick: I suppose the history of 
Ontario in religious equality is nowhere better 
mirrored by the fact that Egerton Ryerson 
started out life as an Anglican and ended up 
as a Nonconformist and John Strachan started 
out as a Nonconformist and ended up as an 
Anglican bis'hop. 

As my colleague said, because of die long 
tradition 6f association of New Democratic 
Party members with such venerable institu- 
tions as Trinity College of the University of 
Toronto, we will support this particular bill. 

Mr. Peterson: You can't get in there if 
you're a socialist, surely. 

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I would just 
like to thank the members for their comments 
in relation to this particular act. As I said in 
my oi)ening remai^ks, this bill provides special 
provisions so that the Anglican dhrnxsh can 
disentangle itself and make special rules in 
relation to its hierarchy as opposed to the 
general law that would be applicable to all. 

Motion agreed to. 

Third reading also agreed to on motion. 

House in committee of the whole. 

RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS' 
LAND ACT 

Consideration of Bill 93, An Act to pro- 
vide for the holding of Land by Religious 
Organizations. 

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, could we 
have the advantage of seeing the amend- 
ment which has been proposed by the min- 
istry? 

Mr. Warner: That is on section 11. 

On section 1: 

Mr. Warner: I listened carefully to what 
the parliamentary assistant said about the 
description of the religions. If he wouldn't 
mind going back over that, I would appre- 
ciate it. 

In section l(l)(b) reference is made to 
" 'religious organization' means an associa- 
tion of persons." It then goes on in a subse- 
quent paragraph to describe "Buddhist, 
Christian, Hindu, Islamic, Jewish, Baha'i, 
Longhouse Indian, Sikh, Unitarian or Zoroas- 
trian faith, or a subdivision or denomination 
thereof." 

Am I to understand that description may 
include the Church of Scientology, for ex- 
ample, or some other similar type of smaller 
group, sect or faith? Am I correct in that 
assumption? 

Mr. Sterling: Basically, the section is 
broken into two parts. In referring to the 
two words after section l(l)(b)iii "and in- 



cludes," the general rule is before that. In 
other words, the court would look at that 
part; then tie other part further delineates 
these other religions that are named. 

Mr. Breithaupt: What you are saying is 
that if some group said they were Unitarian, 
for example, that of itself would be suffi- 
cient to avoid having to go through the par- 
ticular subheadings of that definition. It 
would be simply accepted without further 
inquiry. Therefore, the section is not meant 
to be exclusive at all, but simply descriptive. 

Mr. Sterling: That's correct. 

Mr. Renwick: I did want to point out to 
the parliamentary assistant what I believe 
he said earlier about the question of leasing 
property for an ancillary purpose such as a 
day-care centre or some such other opera- 
tion. I think that indicated he missed the 
point my colleague had been trying to 
make. We recognize very clearly you can't 
make that kind of a distinction. The bill 
specifically provides in section 1(2) that, "In 
interpreting subclause (i) of clause (b) of 
subsection 1, an organization does not cease 
to be charitable for the reason only that 
activities that are not charitable but are 
merely ancillary to a charitable purpose are 
carried on in conjunction with a charitable 
purpose." 

The point we have been trying to make, 
and which we will make at the appropriate 
time with respect to the 40-year lease provi- 
sion, is that you can very clearly say whether 
land is being held for investment or is not 
being held for investment purposes. In that 
instance we can deal with the topic under 
those terms and not be diverted by the kind 
of distinction which I thought the parlia- 
mentary assistant was trying to make in 
reply to my colleague on second reading. 

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, with respect 
to section 1(2) and the interpretation that 
the member for Riverdale has given, is it 
not correct that in effect the Assessment Act 
is the tool which is used with respect to 
discovering whether property, no matter how 
it is owned, is to be used and therefore 
taxed? 

Would not the provisions which he has 
referred to take care of the day-care centre 
or the other ancillary business operation 
under assessment and the decisions of the 
courts with respect to dormitories and resi- 
dences and other matters that we have seen 
over the years? 

I would have thought that would have 
been resolved in that the use of a property 
might bear certain taxes or other burdens, 



MAY 31, 1979 



2449 



even though the title to the property would 
be attended to by this act. 

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, my interpre- 
tation of section 1(2) is that it is specifically 
to provide that the religious organization can 
do acts like leasing its basement to a day- 
care centre, or a women's association hold- 
ing a wedding banquet and making some 
money from serving. 

Section 1 agreed to. 

Section 2 agreed to. 

On section 3: 

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, I have an 
amendment to section 3, and it would be 
subsection 7; so if there are comments prior 
to that, perhaps you would want me to wait 
to see if there are comments to subsections 
1 to 6. 

Mr. Breithaupt: May we have copies of 
the amendment, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. Warner: I explored my concern with 
the parliamentary assistant and, having been 
assured that I am right, it was necessary to 
draft an amendment. 

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Warner moves that sec- 
tion 3 be amended by adding thereto the 
following subsection: 

"7. A trustee shall be a Canadian citizen." 

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, I first apologize 
for the short notice, but I wanted to— 

Mr. Sterling: On a point of order, Mr. 
Chairman: I am sorry that I have to raise a 
point of order on this particular issue, but we 
are to be given some notice of these amend- 
ments; we have not received any notice of 
this amendment and, therefore, I think the 
amendment is out of order. 

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the 
point of order: I certainly understand the 
rules well. The rule says where possible there 
should be two hours' notice. It is not manda- 
tory. 

Mr. Haggerty: The bill has been on the 
order paper for a couple of months. 

Mr. Warner: Earlier, diuring the second 
reading, I attempted to explore my concerns, 
and they were confirmed. Had my concerns 
been allayed, I would not have entered' the 
amendment. There is nothing out of order; 
there is nothing to preclude me from putting 
forward an amendlment. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You could have given 
him notice of the amendment and withdrawn 
it if you were concerned about it. 

Mr. Warner: The member for St. Andrew- 
St. Patrick might wish to read the rules. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Like this afternoon? 



Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, on the point 
of order: Before the acting House leader of 
the government party has an apoplectic fit 
over the question — 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am very upset about 
it. 

Mr. Renwick: — we as always would co- 
operate. If the government wishes time to 
consider the amendment, we would be quite 
prepared to co-operate. If the acting House 
leader of the government party would) move 
that the committee rise and! report, we could 
always consider the matter at some future 
time rather than to get into, at this hour of 
the night, an excited debate over a technical 
question with respect to the application of a 
rule of the assembly. 

[10:15] 

Mr. Breithaupt: Speaking to the point of 
order: Surely we have had the circumstance 
very often in this House where amendments 
are brought forward, particul^ly from the 
government side, on bills that are before us, 
and copies wherever possible are given to the 
critics involved in the debate. However, surely 
other amendments, as we well know, come up 
from time to time in committee and are at- 
tended to. I would hope that this amendment, 
if it's the wish of the member to bring it 
forward, can be discussed by the House with- 
out any particular strain. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I'd be happy to co- 
operate. 

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Chairman, I would like 
to withdraw my objection to the amendment. 

Mr. Warner: Mr. Chairman, what I'd like 
to do is put forward my reasons for placing 
the amendment, and if the parliamentary 
assistant would like some time to reflect on 
the matter, I would be most pleased to have 
it stood over for a while. 

My concern is that I believe that notwith- 
standing the Mortmain and Charitable Uses 
Act which was passed in 1970 and amended 
in 1972, the bill we have does not preclude 
foreign ownership of lands that were origi- 
nally set aside for religious purposes. It is of 
concern to me, as it was to the select com- 
mittee of this Legislatiure looking at the for- 
eign ownership of lands in Ontario, that we 
increasingly have a problem of our land being 
consumed by people who are resident outside 
Canada. 

It would seem to me that since this bill 
directs itself to land being held' by religious 
organizations, and the implication being that 
those are organizations here in Ontario, we 
would want to guarantee that the trustees of 
such organizations are in fact Canadians. 



2450 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



The requirement for Canadian citizenship 
has been reduced to three years. It is almost 
inconceivable to think that the trustees of a 
religious organization, if it's a serious organi- 
zation, would be people who are not Cana- 
dian citizens. Would they rise to such a 
position of trust and responsibility in less 
than three years? Would it not make sense 
that if the religious organization is important 
and substantial in our community, it would 
not be composed of people who are Cana- 
dian citizens? 

I would argue that they would be, and 
that they are, they probably are. Then why 
not try to close the loophole which is evident, 
clearly evident now from the discussion we've 
had on second reading? Why not close that 
loophole at least part way? We will perhaps 
require an amendment later on, but let's close 
the loophole part-way by saying that the 
trustee shall be a Canadian citizen. 

In closing, if other members of the as- 
'^'^mblv, including the parliamentary assistant, 
Jike some time to reflect on this,, I would be 
qviite happy to have Ithis section stood down 
and ■'ve could carrv on with the remaining 
s«^ctions. I'm certainly not one to pressure 
things through, but I think it would be one 
of the small guarantees we could make in this 
House Ito help retain ownership of lands in 
Ontario by people who are resident of On- 
tario or, at least, Canadian citizens. 

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Chairman, it's a diffi- 
cult subject to address, I think, in this amend- 
ment. I have brought forward, on a number 
of occasions, amendments to various statutes 
in order to require voting and a variety of 
other responsibilities to be the prerogative of 
Canadian citizens only. We won't go into the 
meaningless phrase, "or other British sub- 
jects," a phrase which doesn't mean anyfthing 
in law any longer. But I find this amendment 
a curious one because, to me, if trustees can 
be decided upon who are Canadian citizens, 
and the beneficial ownership within a Congre- 
gation might be a group of landed immigrants 
who have not, as yet, achieved ciitizenship, 
then the fact of requiring Canadian citizen- 
ship for the trustees of that group doesn't 
resolve the problem to wthich I think the 
member for Scarborough-EUesmere seriously 
addresses himself-tthat as soon as you use 
the word "trustees," they are holding some- 
thing in trust for themselves and others. 

To make citizenship a sole requirement 
with respect to being a trustee in Ithat case, 
does not to me resolve a problem of what 
could be, and clearly was referred to, as 
"foreign ownership." Where we are dealing 
with a tract of industrial land, a recreational 
area around a lake or wihatever it might be, 



the assessment rules as to use and taxation, 
as well as the other laws that involve them- 
selves in owTiership and use of property— 
whether it be by zoning for the taxation 
framework— are things which will be dealt 
with whether the trustees of a particular 
religious congregation happen to be Cana- 
dians or not. 

So in first considering the amendment 
brought forward, I find my desire to have 
Canadian citizenship an important factor in 
voting for members of this Legislature, and 
indeed, the only factor as it's long overdue, 
or for being involved as a bencher of the 
law society, or for example, as a member of 
the board of governors of a university, how- 
ever it might be, is seemingly to me a more 
important theme than this item. I don't see 
very much being resolved by this amendment, 
but I'd like to hear the parliamentary assist- 
ant's views. 

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I 
might make a comment because of the re- 
marks of the member for Kitchener. I think 
he sees the failure to includb "landed im- 
migrant" in the definition amendmenit as an 
exclusionary provision with respect to some 
of the religious organizations who may wish 
to use the statute for the purpose of estab- 
lishing their right to hold land. 

In the consideration we gave this, with 
the present three-year provision of being in 
Canada as a landed immigrant before your 
eligibility for Canadian citizenship, we dad 
not feel that with most of the communities— 
and I'm thinking particularly of the South 
Asian communities in my riding; the Sikh 
community, for example and other such com- 
munities—that would be a problem. Nor do 
I Itihink it would be in any way seen as a 
restriction on anything related to their religi- 
ous freedom or their right to hold land for 
religious purposes. 

If, however, it were to be seen that way, 
because in voting we have never adhered 
rigidly to the principle of Canadian citizen- 
ship and have admitted British subjects, as 
the member knows, I would have no prob- 
lems. I think the Canadian citizenship is the 
appropriate way to do it. I have no particular 
problems. Perhaps my colleague would have 
no particular problem if we were to amend 
it to include immigrants or Canadian citizens. 

I think we were more concerned that the 
wording "Canadian citizens" was an easier 
way of dealing with the matter. We were 
very much concerned about foreign national- 
ists who were not landed immigrants or 
Canadian citizens being the trustees of land 
in Ontario being held for religious purposes 



MAY 31, 1979 



2451 



in Ontario. It was that problem we were ad- 
dressing. We do not think it is wise for the 
trusteeship of land in Ontario for rehgious 
organizations to be in the handls of persons 
who have no connection whatsoever with 
this country. 

There is the problem of the jurisdiction of 
the courts over trustees as such. We recog- 
nize that in order to tidy It all up we would 
also have to say "resident in Ontario" to be 
within the jurisdiction of the court techni- 
cally. Nevertheless, if they are landed im- 
migranlts or Canadian citizens and they are 
within Canada, the question of attorning to 
the jurisdiction of the court is not an in- 
surmountable problem of service in the other 
jurisdictions across the counltry. 

In the comments that are made, I would 
like to say to the parhamentary assistant 
that if my colleague is agreeable we would 
accept the suhamendment or agree to amend 
that to provide that it read "a Canadian 
citizen or a landed immigrant" if that would 
meet the problem about which we are con- 
cerned. . , 

Mr. Sterling: Basically, I really don't know 
the purpose of this exercise. The land is 
here, the books of the trustees are here and 
the court has jurisdiction over that property. 
The trustees are not the beneficial owners, 
as the member for Kitchener pointed out. 

Mr. Wamen I missed that. 

Mr. Sterling: They are not the beneficial 
owners of the property. The trustees are not 
the beneficial owners. 

Mr. Renwidk: They have the legal title 
to the property. 

Mr. Sterling: They have the legal title to 
the property and they must act in accord- 
ance, under section 6, with the washes of the 
religious organization that is there. If you 
are transferring title or accepting title from 
a religious organization, you should make cer- 
tain that the religious organization has in 
fact approved by resolution what the trustees 
are doing. 

I don't know anywhere in our laws where 
we prevent foreign ownership. I may or 
may not disagree with that philosophically, 
but 1 don't know any precedent for including 
it in this particular piece of legislation. 

The other thing is, I do not see any reason 
to encumber the legislation with rules. We 
are going to be dealing with the idea of this 
particular piece, to simplify a process of law 
to let a congregation hold land by way of 
trusteeship rather than by incorporation. That 
is the idea of the piece of legislation. So 
what do we do? We start to put strictures 



on what a trustee must be. Must he be a 
Canadian citizen or must he be a landed im- 
migrant, or whateverl 

I don't think it is fair to these organiza- 
tions, first of all, to make the distinction be- 
tween a landed immigrant and a Canadian 
citizen. They may very well appoint a trustee 
who is not a Canadian citizen. I object more 
strenuously to the amendment in terms of 
restricting it to Canadian citizens, because 
the group might very well, in error, appoint 
a trustee who is not a Canadian citizen. He 
may be the sole trustee and therefore where 
would all the conveyancing go in terms of 
that piece of land down the road? 

Is that enough reason to attack the title 
to the property because a landed immigrant 
was the sole trustee who signed the particular 
conveyance? The protection is in section 6. 
That is a religious organization, they con- 
trol the trustees. 
[10:30] 

Mr. Warner: What about section 10? 

Mr. Sterling: Section 10 is controlled by 
section 6. 

Mr. Warner: Such terms and conditions as 
they consider expedient. 

Mr. Sterling: Section 6 says they can't 
exercise any powers conferred upon them 
by this act until they are authorized to do 
so by resolution of the religious organiza- 
tion. So they have to take whatever man- 
date they get from the religious organiza- 
tion. I think we're going very far. We're 
trying to make the thing more complicated 
than it should be. We're trying to simplify 
this thing for rehgious organizations. 

Another matter that may be of interest is 
that 1 think when you're dealing with relig- 
ious organizations, as the member for River- 
dale p>ointed out, we are talking about equal- 
ity and we are talking about equality in 
religions. I don't know whether that doesn't 
transverse the nationalistic i)oint of view; 
are we discriminating then against certain 
religious people because of the fact that 
they may have a trustee who is not a Cana- 
dian citizen? I don't know, 1 just think 
we're encumbering the act more than it 
needs to be. I just don't see the necessity of 
this particular amendment. 

Mr. Chairman: Are there going to be 
further comments on this amendment? 

Mr. Warner: Yes. 

On motion by Hon. Mr. Grossman, the 
committee of the whole House reported 
progress. 

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m. 



2452 LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



CONTENTS 

Thursday, May 31, 1979 

Ontario Heritage Amendment Act, Mr. Baetz, second and third readings 2431 

Religioiis Organizations* Lands Act, Mr. McMurtry, second reading 2441 

Anglican Church of Canada Act, Mr. McMurtry, second and third readings 2446 

Religious Organizations* Lands Act, in committee 2448 

Adjournment 2451 



SPEAKERS IN THIS ISSUE 



Boimsall, E. J. (Windsor-Sandwich NDP) 

Bradley, J. ( St. Catharines L ) 

Breithaupt, J. R. (Kitchener L) 

Drea. Hon. F.; Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations ( Scarborough Centre PC ) 

EdighoflFer, H.; Deputy Speaker and Chairman (Perth L) 

Foulds, J. F. (Port Arthur NDP) 

Grande, A. (Oakwood NDP) 

Grossman, Hon. L.; Minister of Industry and Tourism (St. Andrew-St. Patrick PC) 

Haggerty, R. (Erie L) 

Lawlor, P. D. ('Lakeshore NDP) 

MacBeth, J. P.; Acting Speaker (Humber PC) 

McCafiFrey, B. (Armourdale PC) 

Peterson, D. ( London Centre L ) 

Renwick, J. A. ( Riverdale NDP ) 

Ruston, R. F. (Essex North L) 

Samis, G. (Cornwall NDP) 

Sterling, N. W. (Carleton-Grenville PC) 

Warner, D. ( ScaA>orough-Ellesmere NDP ) 




Ontario *^^' "** 



Legislature of Ontario 
Debates 

Official Report (Hansard) 



Third Session, 31st Parliament 

Friday, June 1, 1979 



*ijr:H ^ohi- 



»*» . .,»> 



Speaker: Honourable John E. Stokes 
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, QC ' 



CONTENTS 

Contents 6f the proceedings reported in this issue of Hansard appears at the back, together 
with an alphabetical hst of the speakers taking part. 

Reference to a cumulative index of previous issues can be obtained by calling the Hansard 
Reporting Service indexing stafE at (416) 965-2159. 



Hansard subscription price is $15 per session from: Sessional Subscription Service, Printing 
Services Branch, Ministry of Government Services, Ninth Floor, Ferguson Block, Parliament 
Buildings, Toronto M7A 1N3; phone (416) 965-2238. 



PubEshed by the Legislature of the Province of Ontario. 
Editor of Debates: Peter Brannan. 



2455 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



The House met at 10 a.m. 



Prayers. 



ORAL QUESTIONS 



DARLINGTON NUCLEAR PLANT 

Mr. S. Smith: I will question the Premier, 
Mr. Speaker. 

1 wonder if the Premier recalls the last 
days of the Duplessis regime when it was 
necessary, in order to draw attention to the 
high-handedness of that entrenched govern- 
ment, for three students to park themselves 
outside the oflBce of the then Quebec 
Premier until he finally agreed to what were 
indeed reasonable demands. 

■I wonder if the Premier has any reflections 
on the obvious parallel between the Duplessis 
era and the situation now where three people 
have had to resort to climbing the tower at 
Darlington simply to try to force this arro- 
gant government to have an environmental 
assessment hearing on what is after all, the 
largest nuclear plant yet undertaken by 
Ontario Hydro- 
Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked. 

Mr. S. Smith: —a hearing which was re- 
fused on the basis of time and yet now there 
are many additional years which are there. 
The hearing could be heard under the gov- 
ernment's own legislation. Why does the 
Premier insist on refusing them? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not 
as famihar with the political history of Que- 
bec as is the honourable member and, in that 
I live in the present and look to the future, 
unlike hdm, and in that he knows far more 
about arrogance than any of us on this side 
of the House, the answer is no. 

'Mr. Cunningham: The Premier never 
answers a question. 

Mr. S. Smith: Since the answer is itself 
a reflection of the very regime about which 
I have spoken, may I ask what possible ex- 
cuse there is for the Premier to deny an 
environmental assessment hearing regarding 
the Darlington project, since the original ex- 
cuse was that the matter had to be rushed 
through and that the year or so delay would 
be a dreadful and expensive matter? Now 



FRroAY, June 1, 1979 

that Darlington itself has been delayed for 
several years, what possible excuse can there 
be for telling these people, wlio have re- 
sorted to having to go up that tower and 
who have said that their intent is to stay 
there, that the government still won't abide 
by its own legislation and have a proper 
environmental assessment hearing? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: I realize the honourable 
member is not too concerned about the 
economic aspects of any of these problems 
in the province. I recognize that the leader 
of the Liberal Party would delay any proj- 
ect that will provide employment, a degree 
of economic security and availability of 
f>ower supply. 

Mr. Haggerty: There are other alternatives. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: While the on-stream 
dates for Darlington have been delayed, it 
is also true that a great deal of work will be 
going on, and many job opportunities will 
be provided. The thought of probably a two- 
year delay in terms of an envirormiental 
nearing, which then would mean that the 
contracts would be delayed two years, which 
oould mean substantial financial commit- 
ments on the part of Hydro and which could 
mean the loss of a substantial number of jobs, 
happens to be a concern to this government. 
It is quite obvious from the various utter- 
ances of the leader of the Liberal Party of 
Ontario that jobs are not of interest to his 
party, but they are of some interest to us. 

Mr. Van Home: Oh, get serious. 

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since it is 
the position of the government that there 
should be environmental assessments on all 
major projects which are undertaken, begin- 
ning at some point in the future, is the 
Premier now saying that the government does 
not believe that environmental assessments 
in fact will be carried out on major projects? 
How can he explain why it is that on this 
particular project, whose start-up date has 
been delayed by a total of five years since 
1977, there is now no time to undertake 
something when the reasons for delaying 
the environmental assessment and not hav- 
ing it at the start no longer apply? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: This government intro- 
duced what is probably the most compre- 
hensive and far-reaching legislation on 



2456 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



environmental issues that one will find any- 
where in this country or in the United 
States. 

Ms. Gigantes: You haven't applied it to 
Hydro once. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: In fairness to tlie member 
fw Ottawa Centre, who raised this issue 
some many months ago, before the Leader 
of the Opposition probably understood it, 
I say to him the answer is the same. Cer- 
tainly it is the pohcy of the government to 
have some major work submitted to environ- 
mental assessment. It was the decision of 
this government on this issue that it would 
not be. 

Ms. Gigantes: You have excluded every 
Hydro project. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be interested 
to know if the Leader of the Opposition, in 
the absence of his colleague from the far 
northwestern part of the province of Ontario, 
will be urging us to have an environmental 
assessment on Atikokan, to delay it two or 
three years. Before he answers that, he had 
better check with his colleague. 

Mr. S. Smith: We believe in the law. The 
government passed the law. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on. You are 
up and down, across, sideways and in every 
direction. 

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: Since the 
Premier is busy praising the Envirionmental 
.Assessment Act and since a project like 
Darlington is probably the largest project 
and one of the most important in the history 
of the province, why would Hydro not have 
planned in its own background the oppor- 
tunity for these necessary or predictable de- 
lays, as the Premier refers to them, if the 
act was in fact used? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect to 
the member for Kitchener, whose knowledge 
of this is far greater than that of his leader- 
Mr. Cunningham: You are stretching it. 
Answer the question. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, it is true, it is. I 
would say to him that while he says it is 
the largest project, if he were to take the 
megawatt production from Darlington vis-a- 
vis the megawatt production from Pickering, 
he would find that Darlington is not in fact 
substantially greater than Pickering. 

Mr. S. Smith: The capital cost is higher. 
Hon. Mr. Davis: It is more in dollars be- 
cause dollars today don't buy as much as 
they did when Pickering was built. In relative 
terms, with great respect to the member for 
Kitchener, he is exaggerating the situation 
and exaggerating it substantially. 



He knows how to do mathematics but his 
leader doesn't. He knows full well that if he 
took the dollar terms of Pickering today, re- 
lated to what the projected cost of Darlington 
is, his statement that it is the most significant 
or largest is just not factually correct. 

Mr. Breithaupt: It is certainly a major 
project. 

Hon. Mr, Davis: Certainly it is a major 
project. That's right. I am glad to see the 
member is backing oflF a little bit. One thing 
I would say to the Leader of the Opposition 
is that some of his colleagues are somewhat 
more fair and objective. 

Ms. Gigantes: Supplementary: I would like 
to ask the Premier, doesn't it worry him that 
the Environmental Assessment Act will never 
be used for an Ontario Hydro project and 
that Darlington may be the last chance he 
will have to do an environmental assessment 
of a nuclear power program? Doesn't it worry 
him that the Environmental Assessment Act 
of Ontario is becoming known as the best 
piece of unused environmental legislation in 
North America? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: I realize that the honour- 
able member for Carleton East is knowledge- 
able about environmental legislation all over 
the world. She travels extensively, and she 
has constant communication. But I think if 
she looked at it objectively, if that is possible 
for her so to do, she would discover that the 
environmental legislation, the environmental 
policy and the care that Ontario Hydro gives 
to environmental issues are superior to that 
of any other public utility, and that the 
policy of this government is more specific and 
has been adopted and pursued more so than 
in any other jurisdiction she knows of on this 
continent. 

Mr. Breaugh: Tell them that in Pickering. 

Ms. Gigantes: When are you going to use 
the legislation on Hydro? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know she won't acknowl- 
edge that. It would be against her principles 
ever to suggest that is the fact. 

Mr. Breaugh: That's garbage. 

Mr. Mackenzie: Tliere is no control of 
Hydro at all. 

SALES TAX ON ENTERTAINMENT 

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question I will 
direct to the Premier in the absence of the 
Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) or the 
Minister of Culture and Recreation (Mr. 
Baetz). It is with regard to the government 
support of Canadian cultural talent, includ- 
ing professional Canadian cultural talent 



I 



JUNE 1, 1979 



2457 



I refer to Bill 58 which recendy passed 
in this House and received royal assent. 
Specifically, I refer to the deletion of sec- 
tion 4. This deletion, I admit and I apologize 
to the people of Ontario for it, was sneaked 
past us. I apologize for letting the govern- 
ment sneak it past us. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on! 

Mr. S. Smith: And by you. Just listen and 
you will see. 

Interjections. 

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please put your ques- 
tion. 

Mr. S. Smith: It refers to the fact that 
whereas Canadian talent used to be pro- 
vided with an exemption from the provincial 
sales tax when such Canadian talent was 
booked into an Ontario theatre— this was by 
ministerial exemption— that exemption can 
no longer be given except in the case of 
amateur groups or groups that are receiving 
pubhc assistance. 

Mr. Speaker: Will you please put the 
question? 

Mr. S. Smith: Given that we have in On- 
tario and in Canada a policy to prefer and 
assist Canadian talent with regard to prime 
time on television and with regard to the 
record industry, why did the government 
take away this particular benefit? Has it re- 
ceived any representation from the Canadian 
talent industry asking that the matter be 
reconsidered? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is quite obvious that 
the leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario 
is becoming increasingly desperate these days. 
I have sensed this for the past 10 days, ever 
since he probably voted for Bill Kempling, 
which I am always suspicious that he did. 

Mr. J. Reed: Is the Premier going to answer 
the question? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will say to the mem- 
ber for Halton-Burlington that it is a horrible 
confession for his leader and all of his party 
to make, to say that they didn't look at 
legislation that was approved by the mem- 
bers of this House and to come in here today 
and say it was snuck through. 

Mr. S. Smith: You sneaked it by us, and 
we admit it. 

Hon. Mr. Norton: What are you talking 
about? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the Liberals are ac- 
knowledging to the public of Ontario that 
they do not bother to read the legislation 
before voting for it, then I have to say- 
Mr. Breithaupt: The minister didn't report 
it and we were not aware of it. 



Hon. Mr. Davis: —they are very derelict 
in their responsibility. It was there in black 
and white. Even the leader of the Liberal 
Party should be able to read it. I would say 
with respect, if he now says he didn't want 
to pass that legislation, where was he when 
it was done? 

Hon. Mr. Norton: They are totally irrespon- 
sible. 

Mr. Breithaupt: All that aside, will you 
reconsider it? 

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, 
given that we have heard from the Canadian 
talent who themselves were not told about 
this; given that the theatres tell us they were 
not told about this; given that the bill was 
put forward basically as a budget bill and 
that there was no reference to it in the 
budget; given that the minister made no 
mention of the matter during the debate— 
we have checked Hansard— 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Did the Leader of 
the Opposition read it? 

Mr. S. Smith: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: And he didn't under- 
stand it. 

Mr. Speaker: Order. 

Mr. S. Smith: —given that the minister 
made no reference to it, what I ask now, 
and I apologize for letting it be snuck by 
like this— and so did the NDP— 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Sneaked by? 
[10:15] 

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is there a question in 
there some place? 

Mr. S. Smith: The question is, and the 
Premier has not answered it, has he received 
representation from outraged people within 
the Canadian talent industry pointing out 
that now that the bill is being put into eflFect 
they are suflFering from it? And will the 
government reconsider that matter? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: This has to be one of the 
most incredible moments for the Leader of 
the Opposition. I never dispute his disagree- 
ing with government policy. I never dispute 
his opportunity to say he doesn't agree with 
legislation. But to have the unmitigated gall 
to come in here this morning and say that 
legislation was snuck by, if that is proper 
grammatical phraseology, has to be the most 
ludicrous thing I have heard from a Leader 
of the Opposition in years. 

Interjections. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don't say for a moment 
that everything we legislate represents per- 
fection, but the Leader of the Opposition 
always wants to talk about sharing responsi- 



2458 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



bility. If there is something the honourable 
member doesn't like to approve of, why 
doesn't he assume some of the responsibility 
and say to people that he goofed in his 
opinion? 

Mr. S. Smith: I apologized to the members. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: He apologized, but why 
doesn't he say he made a mistake? 

Mr. S. Smith: Are you going to reconsider 
it or not? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: As a matter of fact, I can't 
say. I haven't seen any representations. Cer- 
tainly, if there are representations, I will take 
a look at them. 

Mr. S. Smith: You will receive them, I 
assure you. 

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY 

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the 
Premier, which also relates to the question 
of nuclear power. 

In view of the confirmation by Ontario 
Hydro that there are substantial heavy water 
leaks at the Rolphton nuclear power plant 
and that those leaks are far more serious than 
the routine housekeeping which the Minister 
of Energy (Mr. Auld) told us was taking place 
while that plant was closed over the course 
of the past couple of months; in view of the 
fact that those leaks have led Hydro to delay 
the reopening of that plant past the May 31 
date that was predicted earlier, will the 
Premier undertake to have Hydro keep the 
Rolphton nuclear power plant closed until 
this Legislature can have a full report on all 
the safety aspects of the Rolphton plant, in- 
cluding the leaks? Will he also undertake 
that the plant will be closed until the matter 
of safety at Rolphton has been fully investi- 
gated by the select committee on Ontario 
Hydto aJBEairs? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: This matter has been dis- 
cussed, I think, on two or three occasions, 
with some lack of unanimity across the 
House, as I understand it. 

An hon. member: Is it housekeeping or not? 

Mr. Speaker: Order. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Am I wrong in saying 
there is lack of total unanimity? Isn't that a 
very objective statement? I can only say that 
the Atomic Energy Control Board and Ontario 
Hydro are as conscious, and more so, of safety 
at Rolphton and anywhere else, as the leader 
of the New Democratic Party. 

Quite obviously Rolphton will not be 
opened by AECB and Ontario Hydro until 
they are satisfied it is safe. 

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: In view of the 
fact that just in the last three or four weeks 



we have had problems about radiation ex- 
posure of workers at Bruce, we have had leaks 
in nuclear power plants both in Pickering and 
in Rolphton, we have had problems with the 
boilers of Babcock and Wilcox, can the 
Premier not understand that the concerns 
about nuclear plant safety will not be re- 
solved just by leaving die matter to the 
Atomic Energy Control Board? Will he, there- 
fore, not agree that the Rolphton plant, which 
is insignificant in terms of jxjwer supply for 
Ontario at this time, should remain closed 
until these matters of safety can be fuUy in- 
vestigated by the public's representatives here 
in this Legislature through the select com- 
mittee on Ontario Hydro afFairs? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I take 
nothing away from the abilities of the mem- 
bers of this Legislature, and I mean that 
sincerely. But I also suggest, with respect, 
to the leader of the New Democratic Party 
that there are sometimes temptations on his 
part and on that of others to partisanize a 
very sensitive and important issue. The de- 
cision is that of AECB, which is the statutory 
body that controls the safety of these plants. 
If I were in the member's position, I am not 
sure I would say, as he is attempting to say, 
that he has the competence to second-guess. 
I would say to him what I said in the answer 
to his first question, that the Atomic Energy 
Control Board and Ontario Hydro are con- 
cerned about, are sensitive to and I think 
have demonstrated, in any objective analysis, 
a very thoughtful approach to the planning 
and operation of the nuclear system in this 
province. 

I understand it is the growing philosophy 
of the honourable member's party, as par- 
ticularly represented by the member for 
Carleton East, that it would call a halt to the 
nuclear program. That party would probably 
shut down all of the existing nuclear facili- 
ties if she had her way. That party would 
take away 30 per cent of the generating 
capacity of this province, with all of the 
economic implications that are maintained in 
that. 

Ms. Gigantes: T have a supplementary 
question, Mr. Speaker- 
Mr. Speaker: Order. If it is just for a 
supplementary question, in the proper rota- 
tion of things it goes to the member for 
Halton-Burlington. 

Ms. Gigantes: I have a point of privilege 
I would like to raise before a supplementary 
question. 

Mr. Speaker: Point of privilege? 

Ms. Gigantes: I have a point of privilege. 
The Premier has suggested to the House that 



JUNE 1, 1979 



2459 



my position is that every nuclear plant in 
Ontario sihould be closed down. I would like 
to tell this House that that is not my posi- 
tion at all and that the Premier and the 
members of his cabinet should refrain from 
saying that. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Speaking to that point of 
privilege, I want to say— and I want to say 
this in public— how encouraged I am that the 
member for Carleton East is now in support 
of the nuclear program in this province. 

RULES OF THE HOUSE 

Mr. Foulds: On a point of order, Mr. 
Speaker: Yesterday afternoon after question 
period I drew your attention to standing 
order 19(d)(9). I suggest to you that the 
Premier's previous statement and his second 
previous statement with regard to his impu- 
tation of motives to my colleague from 
Oarleton East falls within fhe ambit of that 
rule and that you should have called the 
Premier to order. I draw that to your atten^ 
tion with the greatest of respect. Other- 
wise, we are going to get into these inci- 
dents that have plagued this House over the 
past week. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wasn't talking about 
motivation; I was talking about a point of 
view. 

Interjections. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly I am talking 
about a point of view. If one sat on this 
side in the House and read the reports from 
the select committee, one would gain the 
impression that the member for Carleton 
East was less than enthusiastic about nuclear 
energy, and 1 think that is a valid assess- 
ment to make. 

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur 
did, quite properly in has mind, get up and 
draw my attention to the possibility of a 
violation of the standing order with regard 
to another member imputing unavowed 
motives. 

I have looked at the matter and, since 
you raise it a^in today, I do not think 
there is any relationship to what went on 
yesterday afternoon or what was said this 
morning with regard to imputing vmavowed 
motives. I think that members of the House 
are far too sensitive when somebody gets 
up and says, "I think such and such a 
member holds a particul^ point of view." 
If in the mind of someone else that is not 
a correct position, or it is not a correct 
assumption, it is quite proper for that mem- 
ber to get up and deny that. 

The mem'ber for Carleton East has an op- 
portunity to do that. I do not think it is 



really any big deal. We have differences of 
opinion here every day. For the honour- 
able member to suggest that every time there 
is a difference of opinion there is a viola- 
tion of the standing orders, I think borders 
on the ridiculous. 

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY 

(continued) 

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary 
to the Premier, in connection with the Rolph- 
ton matter: I wonder if the Premier would 
undertake to adVise those caucus members 
who sit on the Hydro select committee to 
support an immediate examination by the 
select committee of the Rolphton situation 
while Rolphton is still shut down, as we had 
previously requested but which had been re- 
jected in the select committee. 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I always am 
prepared to discuss certain isues with mem- 
bers of our caucus. But, unlike the Liberal 
Party of Ontario, I do not direct our mem- 
bers, who are there to act in the interests of 
the people they represent, to take dictates 
from me. I know the member's leader wanders 
in on occasion and whips his people into line 
to satisfy a particular position. But we are 
independent thinkers on this side of the 
House. We are prepared to make some of 
our own judgements. I cannot say to the 
honourable member that I can impose my will 
on the members on that particular committee. 
He may run his store that way; we do not. 
So I cannot give that undertaking. 

While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker— on 
a matter of personal privilege— when the 
Leader of the Opposition reflects this week- 
end, and I am sure he reflects every week- 
end, on the suggestion that we sneaked some- 
thing by, I would say to him to please take 
the bill home and look at page whatever it 
is; I guess it is opposite page four- 
Mr. S. Smith: Just a moment. What is this 
on? 

Hon. ]Vfr. Davis: It is a matter of personal 
privilege. The Leader of the Opposition said 
we sneaked something by. Let him read it. 
It was there; it was printed. Reread it. 

Mr. Speaker: Order. 

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, we all know 
that the Premier of this province is the most 
sensitive person alive— 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Without doubt. That's 
what my wife tells me. 

Ms. Gigantes: —so I would like to ask him 
whether it does not ruffle his sensitivity just a 
little when the director of nuclear generation 
for Ontario Hydro says he cannot estimate 



2460 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



the amount of radioactivity that is being 
emitted by the heavy-water leaks at the 
Rolphton plant? 

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon- 
ourable member is asking me whether I 
agree with her that I am the most sensitive 
person around, the answer to that is yes. 

Ms. Gigantes: I did not ask that. 

RECRUITMENT OF FOREIGN WORKERS 

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a ques- 
tion of the Minister of Labour and Man- 
power, arising out of yet another attempt 
by a multinational corporation to find skilled 
workers abroad rather than get them here 
in this province. 

Can the minister explain why Rio Algom 
has applied to Canada Manpower to import, 
from Britain, 130 skilled tradesmen such as 
mechanics, electricians and millwrights, for 
its operations up in Elliot Lake? Can he 
explain why there were no requirements for 
the training of skilled workers here in On- 
tario, since the province is advancing, through 
Ontario Hydro, a sum approaching $300 
million for the uranium contracts which it 
has undertaken with Rio Algom and Denison 
Mines in Elliot Lake? 

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first of all, 
with regard to the reference by the leader 
of the third party to the Ministry of Labour 
and Manpower, I would advise him that we 
are well along with internal discussions re- 
garding that projected mandate. I would 
expect there will be an announcement some 
time within the next few weeks about the 
exact delineation of the nature of the trans- 
fer of power. 

In the meantime, as he well knows, I 
would like to refer those two specific ques- 
tions to the Minister of Industry and Tourism 
and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephen- 
son). 

Mr. Cassidy: I redirect the question to the 
Minister of Industry and Tourism, Mr. 
Speaker. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I would 
say to the leader of the third party that 
obviously in the course of a year, as I made 
quite clear a couple of weeks ago to the 
House, there are several hundred firms which 
approach us to use our selective placement 
service. Offhand, I would not know whether 
or not that particular firm has used our 
selective placement service. They may have 
gone directly. I obviously could not tell him 
that this morning. 

If in fact they have used the selective 
placement service, I can assure the member 
that in each and every case the process I 



outlined to the House a couple of weeks 
ago is followed. I will be pleased to find 
that out for the member and report to the 
House on Monday. 

Mr. Cassidy: I redirect the question to 
the Minister of Education as well, Mr. 
Speaker. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You can't do that. 
[10:30] 

Mr. Cassidy: Can the Minister of Industry 
and Tourism explain why it is that Denison 
Mines, which has got the other major share 
of this multibillion-doUar contract being paid 
for by the taxpayers of Ontario through 
Hydro has, in just two years, trained more 
than 100 mechanics after the union involved 
resisted the company's efforts to go abroad 
to Britain to bring those workers in from 
abroad? Why can't this be done as well in 
the case of Rio Algom, rather than having 
Rio Algom bring 130 workers in from an- 
other country, when they should and could 
be trained among workers here in this 
province? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I'm not prepared to 
answer a question based on certain premises 
that the member wants to advance this 
morning, not knowing myself whether the 
information he is offering us is true. I would 
prefer to get the facts of the situation and 
I'll deal with all of those things on Monday. 
I know the member would want me to have 
that information so we can have an in- 
telligent dialogue on the problem, and I'll 
do that. 

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister indicate, 
in a general sense at least, that he is com- 
mitted to the proposition that young people 
graduating from high school in North Shore 
and in Elliot Lake should be able to gain 
jobs in their own area rather than leave and 
go elsewhere? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not only com- 
mitted to that personally but through the 
efforts of my colleagues, the Minister of 
Labour, the Minister of Education and, cer- 
tainly, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. 
Bemier), plus other representatives such as 
my seatmate, the Provincial Secretary for 
Resources Development (Mr. Brunelle)— 

Mr. Lupusella: He doesn't know anything. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: —have affirmatively 
indicated in an aggressive way, not only our 
commitment to that, but that our commitment 
is no less equal and, perhaps, surpasses the 
commitment that the member can so easily 
talk about from the third party on that side. 
We have some track records to prove it. Our 
commitment is there, and the member can't 



JUNE 1, 1979 



2461 



presuppose from the circumstances surround- 
ing one company of which I don't even have 
the details that our commitment isn't— 

Mr. Warner: You are doing nothing. 

Mr. M. Davidson: The minister of wild rice 
contracts. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: —every bit as strong 
as his. It is. 

Mr. Cassidy: When the minister reports 
back to this House, would he care to explain 
why it is that Rio Algom has made no efiFort 
to expand its 25 trainee positions in Elliot 
Lake in the 15 months since Ontario signed a 
multibilhon-dollar contract for uranium with 
that particular company? Why is Rio Algom 
only training 25 workers when it's going 
abroad for five times that number under the 
application to Canada Manpower? 

Mr. Wildman: Why can't we do the same 
for Denison mines? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, I will deal 
with the selective placement portion of that 
question to the extent that I can, although 
one of my colleagues might have more appro- 
priately answered that question. I can assure 
the member that I will have that information 
next week. 

FIBREGLASS STUDIES 

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I have a 
question of the Minister of Labour. Is the 
minister aware of the potentially harmful 
eflFects in both the manufacturing and the 
handling of fibreglass as has been found in 
Japan indicating those who had been exposed 
to fibreglass dust now suffer from a lung 
disease called pneumoconiosis? Will the minis- 
ter implement a monitoring project so that 
he could find out, in the early stages, if there 
is that harmful effect in both the manufactm:- 
ing and the handling of fibreglass? 

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I'm well 
aware of the fact that a variety of studies 
over the years have indicated that fibreglass 
was a relatively inert substance that was not 
known to create any pathology. As the mem- 
ber quite properly points out, there are a 
few reports that have come out of Japan 
recently that have a contrary point of view. 

During consideration of my estimates, one 
of the members raised the suggestion that 
Dr. Selikoff of New York had, indeed, pub- 
lished some material. We contacted him 
directly some weeks ago and he indicated 
that although he was in the midst of some 
studies, he had not submitted any reports yet 
or drawn any conclusions. But, all of that 
having been said, I don't think we can ignore 
the fact that there may be reports somewhere 



indicating that there may be some harmful 
effects from fibreglass. I instructed staff some 
weeks ago to arrange for a meeting with 
labour and management representatives to 
discuss the very problem the member has 
raised and then proceed with further investi- 
gation of those studies. 

Mr. Blundy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
ask the Minister of Labour if, in the light of 
this new thought that has been expressed by 
the member for Windsor-Walkerville, are all 
precautions being taken in the work place in 
the Fiberglas Canada Limited plant in 
Sarnia, the largest manufacturer of fibreglass 
insulation, to make sure this is being moni- 
tored? Would the Minister of Labour further 
undertake to have the Workmen's Compensa- 
tion Board keep abreast of this situation in 
case certain cases come up in the future that 
are based on this new concept in the work 
place? 

Hod. Mr. Elgie: First of all, I want to make 
it very clear that there have been many well- 
respected authorities who, as recently as two 
years ago, have indicated quite clearly that 
fibreglass is still considered by them to be an 
inert, harmless substance. What I said to the 
member for Windsor-Walkerville, and I will 
repeat it again, is that any information to the 
contrary has to be followed up. 

I hope the member is not implying that we 
now have massive information that it isn't 
inert, because that isn't so. There are some 
suggestions from new studies. We can't ignore 
those and we have to proceed to review any 
new device that comes up. 

Certainly I will involve the board and keep 
it informed. We will proceed to discuss the 
problems with a variety of companies, in- 
cluding Fiberglas Canada, and with labour 
representatives to make certain there is no 
validity— or, indeed, that there is validity— to 
the suggestions that have come out of the 
Japanese studies. 

WESTINGHOUSE CANADA 

Mr. di Santo: I have a question for the 
Minister of Industry and Tourism about the 
critical situation in the electrical industry in 
Hamilton. In view of the fact that Mr. C. 
F. MacNeil, the plant manager of West- 
inghouse Canada Limited, where 700 jobs 
are about to be lost, was quoted in the 
Hamilton Spectator as saying: "Looking at 
the Canadian switchgear and control market 
throu^ American eyes, they couldn't see 
why it couldn't be supplied from Buffalo and 
Pittsburgh"; and in view of the fact that 
since we last asked the minister questions 
about employment in the electrical industry 



2462 



LEGISLATURE OF ONTARIO 



in Hamilton the situation has become worse 
with electrical jobs in that city falling below 
the 1974 level of 2,6C0 and 700 lower than 
last year, doesn't the minister think it is just 
possible that Mr. MacNeil's prediction will 
come true? 

Doesn't he think that with the lowering of 
the tariffs as a result of the GATT negotia- 
tions more jobs may be lost? What does he 
intend to do, since his ad hoc grants to 
industries won t solve the problem? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: 1 think if the mem- 
ber will recall our discussion on this earlier 
he will note that at that time we were re- 
flecting on the need for certain dhanges in 
the electrical industry. One of the changes 
most firms are having to go to in order to 
compete is specialization in certain products 
and rationalization of their operations 
throughout North America. The changing 
GATT situation is a fact of life. 

What Westinghouse is doing now is what 
most firms in the electronics industry are 
doing, and that is looking at the different 
products made in different plants and tend- 
ing to treat the entire North American 
market, if not the world market, as the 
market for each particular product. They 
look at their whole family of plants and 
decide which products should now be made 
in which plants. That is a strategy that more 
and more firms, regardless of their field, are 
going to have to adopt with the new tariff 
competition. 

Mr. di Santo: That's the strategy of the 
multinationals. What's your strategy? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I don't know what 
Westinghouse in Hamilton is ultimately going 
to decide. I wouldn't be surprised if some 
of the consequences the member has talked 
about do occur. That is why we are lanxious 
to get Westinghouse to agree there would be 
no layoffs, but that any reduction in employ- 
ment would be through attrition. 

None the less, I do want to emphasize this 
point: It is likely that if Westinghouse con- 
cludes the product specialization it might 
have to move to require some decentrali- 
zation, firstly, employees there will be given 
the first opportunity to move into whatever 
decentralized operations are developed— 

Mr. di Santo: What if they move to the 
States? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me finish. 
Secondly, I am quite confident that a fair 
number of plants into which they may decide 
to decentralize their ope